41 Comments for “Reflections on the Day of Silence”

1. 

   1Arturo

   wrote on 23 May 2006 at 4:42

   Although you express some interesting insights, Katelyn, you’re incorrect about tolerance being the recognition and respecting of other people’s beliefs and practices.

   To tolerate means to put up with something, to forebear it, to endure it, as in “to lift up and bear a burden.” Tolerance is voluntary. The one who tolerates and puts up with the burden has the power to choose not to tolerate, and do away with the burden. Otherwise, we’re not talking about tolerance any more but about compulsion.

   Furthermore, nobody is required to put up with evil. Evil is never to be tolerated. Real Christians know this profoundly. They know that tolerance is not without limits. Christians are to endure some things, but other things they’re never to endure.

   If true rather than so-called Christians live in a land of Liberty, where freedom of expression exists, then with their mouths they not merely can but must be openly intolerant of evil. And sodomy is evil, according to God’s Word.

   Sodomites are not to be tolerated.

   We may express mercy to those trapped in this perversion by abstaining from giving them what they deserve according to God’s Law (death). We may also express grace to the perverts, and give them what they do not deserve (love). But we’re not to tolerate their perversion, even less accept it. That corruption, however, is what the Day of Silence is trying to plant in the mind and hearts of our young in this country.

   See below:

   http://www.sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/8268
2. 

   2Lee

   wrote on 24 May 2006 at 3:22

   Arturo,

   While I agree with you about the sinfulness of a homosexual act, I fear that you are crossing into an area that Jesus Christ forbid you to go - judgement.

   For in Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus said “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

   Also, when you say they “deserve death” in God’s eyes, who among us does not? Look at John ch 8:3-11, The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst
   they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
   And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”

   Any one of us who says another “deserves death”, in the end, when Jesus asks if we are without sin, we too will have to go away.

   -Lee
3. 

   3Lee

   wrote on 24 May 2006 at 3:33

   Correction Last paragraph should not have been in italics - those are my words.

   I present Fulton J Sheen from his 1931 essay “A Plea for Intolerance” -

   
   Tolerance applies to persons, but never to truth, or ideals. Of these things we must be intolerant. For right is right even if no one is right, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is wrong.
   

   And George Weigel’s definition:

   Tolerance is not pretending differences don’t make a different. Tolerance is being able to discuss those differences in a polite, civil, non-violent manner.
   

   -Lee
4. 

   4Lee

   wrote on 24 May 2006 at 3:50

   Hi Katelyn,

   Rereading your entry, I see we interpret Matthew chapter 7 differently My view is that we can judge actions, but cannot judge a person’s soul, for only God knows the state of a soul. Or, put another way, I can judge the sin, but not the person commiting the sin. I can judge John Kerry’s abortion stance, and thus not vote for him, but I cannot judge him. Just my interpretation of that passage
   I also couple it with Matthhew, Chapter 16, verses 13-19:

   Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

   In the end, I recognize that I was not given the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”, and do not have the power to “bind and loose”.

   And, of course, the entry I quoted from Saint John. How many of us have not committed mortal sin? Especially once we become adults, for God seems to protect children in a special way from mortal sin.

   In the end, I think you and I come to the same conclusions, but some of our thought processes may be different getting there
   -Lee
5. 

   5Arturo

   wrote on 25 May 2006 at 4:13

   Lee, what nonsense is this ”sinfulness of a homosexual act”? Sin is not an act. Sin is the human condition; die-in-the-wool, total depravity. Sodomy is a manifestation of that sinfulness, no different than are stealing, lying, drunkenness, murder, etc. — all of which we’re called to judge IN ACCORDANCE TO Scripture, per Matthew 7:2: “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.“ Go ahead and judge, Lee. Jesus does not forbid judging. Be discriminating, judicious. But He requires just judgment, possible only when measuring with the same righteous standard that we’re to be measured with. In other words, we’re to use God’s righteous Word as the only measure of judgment.

   What does God say about sodomy? What is His standard applicable to you, me and the open sodomitical? He said it is abomination. Sodomites are abominable transgressors and merit the death penalty: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Lev. 20:13) I didn’t say it. He said it. That’s pretty clear judgment, my friend. Why do you fear quoting Him in context? Your exegesis is most thoroughly incorrect, Lee.

   As far as who is to APPLY capital punishment after judgment, Scripture is clear also that this is not left to any individual but to the civil magistrate: “Then I commanded your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s.” (Deut. 1:16-17b) This is not mob rule nor are Christians to countenance vigilantism, but depend on God’s established (obedient) authorities. But that does not mean that sodomy is not a capital crime according to God, and that He has established authorities to deal with it accordingly. He already has judged all sodomites and we’re merely to repeat His judgment call from Scripture rather than, as the Pharisees did, judge according to our own sinful conventions.

   Jesus and the adulterous woman is a case in point. Jesus would have made a mockery of His Father’s own Word if He had not stood for capital punishment for adultery. But the Law is clear: “The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer AND the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 20:10) While the adulteress was present for judgment, where was the adulterer? The Pharisees (the authorities) didn’t bring him along. In their sinfulness, they framed the woman to try to frame Christ. They had no legal case! In failing to meet the demands of God’s Law, NO ONE could judge her ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. That’s the only way to judge anyone justly. To put the adulteress to death they would have to judge her according to Man’s sinful rules (an unlawful, unjust, wicked judgment), because Man is not sinless. Thus, under these conditions who would be without sin and worthy of punishing her (cast the first stone), asked Jesus? Obviously, no one. Jesus presented them with a dilemma in the form of a rhetorical question, Lee, and they couldn’t split it.

   But rest assured that, had they brought both adulterer and adulteress for judgment, the conviction would have necessitated death as punishment or God would have been mocked. Jesus said that He came to comply and not to destroy the Law. (Matt. 5:17) That’s what His Love achieved. His Love did not abrogate the Law, which is what you’re driving at. His Love fulfills it. Do as He did then, and respect and uphold God’s Law, knowing your own sinfulness and relying on His Grace and not on your own feeble attempts at trying to fulfill it yourself. Once again, your exegesis is incorrect, Lee. You’re reading into rather than drawing out of Scripture what lies therein.

   Do as Jesus called us to do: Judge sinners (starting with yourself) with God’s standard, call them to repentance, to sin no more, and also call to obedience all of God’s appointed authorities, that their sentencing be truly just against those who wantonly continue to rebel and trangress. If our society upheld God’s Law, we would be truly loving rather than harming our neighbors. (Rom. 13:10)
6. 

   6Katelyn Sills

   wrote on 25 May 2006 at 6:32

   Perhaps you are correct, Arturo, in saying that I incorrectly defined tolerance. I simply used the answers.com definition. Regardless, what I meant, even if it may not be the “official” definition, is that tolerance is acknowledging and not outlawing something or someone.

   I agree with you that the Bible says that Christians are not to condone evil. That is pretty obvious to anyone familiar with the Bible. However, I am unsure as to how far you believe “not condoning” extends. In my opinion, this is what really inhibits opinions like yours from being more widely accepted. Like having the word “gay” with a circle and a line through it, people are unsure of what it means exactly. And that really hurts our cause, because people can fill in whatever they wish.

   So, just to be clear- what exactly do you mean by “Sodomites are not to be tolerated”?

   Possibilities include- killing homosexuals, making homosexuality illegal, educating people about what the Bible says about homosexuality, or trying to show Christ’s love (including the “go and sin no more” part of the story) to homosexuals.

   The first two are outrageous, but you have not denied them, and a crazed liberal might purposefully understand it that way. If it is the last two that you believe in, then that is exactly what I am suggesting, so I fail to see where the argument is.

   Lee, I don’t see any basis that would make you decide to interpret Matthew 7 as you do. In fact, in John 7:24, Jesus tells the Jews, “Don’t judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, “It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans–a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” Furthermore, how is judging a person different from judging their actions? Unlike loving the sinner, hating the sin, there is no difference that I can see.

   But anyway, apart from all of the above, I think the three of us are on the same side- and we need to act as such.
7. 

   7Arturo

   wrote on 25 May 2006 at 17:15

   I believe that not condoning evil must extends as far as Scripture indicates, which means that we are to countenance none, zero, zip.

   The question isn’t about how much wrong is acceptable wrong. The question is about how much wrong is tolerable wrong, and there is wrong that is ALWAYS intolerable. How much murder is tolerable, Katelyn? How much rape? How much sadism?

   In a nation of sinners, those truly fearful of the Living God and knowledgeable of the riches of His Grace and Law know that we’re to be holy because He is holy. Like Him, we are to tolerate nothing that He tells us to not tolerate, such as sodomy, while tolerating all that He tells us to tolerate, such as insults. This shouldn’t be too difficult to understand, except that the unbeliever is blind to it while too many believers don’t even know what they claim to believe in. This answer should make clear to you where I stand relative to how much should sodomites be tolerated. They shouldn’t be tolerated at all, because God in precise terms doesn’t tolerate them at all.

   As to the second part of your question, you’re after not understanding judgment but after receiving an answer to the question of how society at large is to handle a just conviction against any violating individual. Tell me, how do we handle the conviction of murderers, rapists, sadists, for example? Do we follow God’s directions on it or Man’s? Which one ought we follow and why? What results come from following one versus the other? If you’re a mature Christian, then you should have clear answers to these questions. Answer my questions and I’ll answer yours on this portion of the subject under discussion.
8. 

   8Lee

   wrote on 25 May 2006 at 23:48

   Arturo,

   Beware of hatred, for hatred is not of God, but of Satan.

   Our Lord Jesus Christ brought a message into the world, a message of Truth, love, hope, kindness, forgiveness. I fundamentally disagree with you on your interpretation of John Ch 8, vs 3-11. I present it again for the ease of reading:

   The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”

   I have a couple of observations to make. First, in quoting Leviticus and saying “The law says to kill adulterers and homosexuals” who are you sounding more like, the Pharisees, or Jesus Christ? I find your suggestion that the women got off on a technicality extremely distasteful, saying that if they had brought in the man as well Jesus have said “Kill them both”. I strongly disagree. If that was the message, it would have been put into this passage. It was not. What was put into the passage was the “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

   Jesus’ love is all throughout the New Testament. For me to quote everything would basically rewrite most of the New Testament, but I will present this passage:

   John 15: vs 9-17:

   As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.
   If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

   These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. This I command you, to love one another.

   I am against the death penalty unless it is necessary to defend society, both from Jesus’ forgiveness of those who “deserved” the death penalty and the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2267:

   Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

   If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

   Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically on-existent.”

   I know you will go back and point to the Old Testament, Leviticus/etc, to defend killing homosexuals, but I do not accept all the laws of the Old Testament. Neither did Jesus, as shown in these two examples of Scripture:

   Deuteronomy Ch 24:1-4

   When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

   The Law allowed a men to divorce their wives. However, Jesus does not:

   Mark Ch 10, vs 2-12:

   And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.’ `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

   And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

   Also, if you take everything from the Old Testament 100% literally, do you support slavery? For it is written in the Old Testament:

   Exodus, Ch 21, vs 20-21:

   When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.

   I for one think slavery is evil. I pray that you do too. If you do, how do you reconcile that belief with the above passage?

   -Lee
9. 

   9Lee

   wrote on 25 May 2006 at 23:53

   Sin is not an act. Sin is the human condition;

   “Sin” can be used either as a verb or noun. By act I am referring to a use of it as a verb. If it isn’t a verb as well, what is it in the following sentence?

   Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.

   -Lee
10. 

    10langley

    wrote on 26 May 2006 at 16:54

    Capital punishment is never right under any circumstances for one simple irrefutable reason: Human judicial systems can make errors and will sentence innocent people to death. The loss of even a single innocent life under these circumstances does not justify the deaths of any number of guilty parties, no matter what they did, and anyone who thought otherwise is quite simply walking down the path of murder.
11. 

    11Arturo

    wrote on 26 May 2006 at 18:55

    Lee, yours is a prime example of pietistic eisegesis. Though you make a valiant effort at text-proofing, you fail at sound hermeneutics. Scripture interprets Scripture, Lee. Since you do not accept all of Scripture as given, your arguments become unsound, because you base them on your own opinion.

    * Does Jesus command His followers to imitate Him as He imitates the Father?
    * Does Jesus have enemies?
    * Does He love His enemies as the Father loves His, for the Father and the Son are one and not in conflict with each other?
    * Are we to love our enemies by imitation of Christ and by direct command from Him?

    The Answer: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, right? But let us continue.

    What happens when such true Love is in application?

    * Do we not crown with fiery coals the enemies of God?
    * Does not Jesus cast these enemies (not His friends but His ENEMIES!) into a fiery pit?

    Answer: Yes and most resoundingly Yes!

    When we love as Jesus loves as the Father loves, we destroy by fire any who stand unrepentant in enmity against God. (Don’t be carnal in your reading of this last sentence, and start accusing me of burnings at the stake inanity. If you have ears, then hear!)

    God’s love is a purifying fire. It DESTROYS His enemies. Why? It does so because He is HOLY and His Law reveals this great Holiness about Him. You wish to compromise on this Christian principle, as do all antinomians. You’re making your own god, because you don’t like the one in the Bible. (That’s a breach of the First Commandment, by the way.)

    Why are you so uncomfortable with God’s Law? If He is unchanging, why would you expect His Word to change? (His Word includes His Law, you know.) Might it be that you don’t know Him well enough to understand that all knowledge and wisdom are HIDDEN in Christ? You’ve got to dig deep into this. Christ has judged the world. What did He do it with? He used God’s Law, the very thing you do not accept in full. Is it not lack of knowledge about these hidden gems that keeps you remote from the truth?

    Any sodomite that, after hearing the message of salvation, willingly remains a transgressor of God’s Law and, beyond that, seeks for approval to subvert truth and redefine good and evil, pure and impure is, by definition, an enemy of the Lord. All unrepentant sodomites are so, else they would not be sodomites. Their destruction is obligatory or God’s legal utterances would be futile and, for that, rather let God be right and every man a liar.

    As to the capital punishment issue: no law is law unless it is God’s Law. God establishes magistrates to uphold His Law. His Law calls for capital punishment for sodomy and it is the treacherous magistrate that would not obey. Again, the sword is in the hand of the magistrate not the populace, regardless of how the sentence is executed in the end, whether by legal injection or stoning.

    On a side note, the Bible does not prohibit slavery. The human condition is such that we’re all slaves either to God or Man, and this is unavoidable. Paul, in fact, commanded Onesimus to return to Philemon. Slavery is a biblical institution. What Christ did was to purify it not by removing the master/servant construct but by making the master and the servant brethren, and both slaves to the same benevolent God. Absolute autonomy is punishable by eternal death in Scripture. Just remember Adam. There is only one Sovereign and it isn’t individualistic human spirit.
12. 

    12Lee

    wrote on 26 May 2006 at 21:32

    Arturo,

    I trust the teachings of the Church that Jesus Christ started, that being the Catholic Church. It is protect by the Holy Ghost from teaching falsehood (though its members, myself included, fall short). I think your interpretation of Scripture is a perfect example of how individuals can screw up interpretation of Scripture (do you still maintain Jesus would have said ‘kill them both?’ if both the man and woman were brought before him).

    Let me summarize your positions, since you are avoiding stating it directly:

    If you had your way, the law of the United States of America would:

    1. Execute all homosexual persons.
    2. Execute all adulterers. (well, that would solve the so-called over-population problem)
    3. Allow slavery (guess you figure the wrong side won the Civil War).

    You dodged the issue of Jesus correcting some of the ‘man-made’ laws contained in the Old Testament - doing good on the Sabbath, an ‘eye for an eye’ revenge (he changed it to ‘love thy enemy’), the teachings on divorce and remarriage, strengthening the definition of adultery (don’t just not do it, don’t even *think* about it!)

    You might manage to do something that neither Sceptical Catholic or L have managed, to make me into a liberal Democrat … no offense SC and L, you know I like you
    BTW, I consider your proposed laws more reminiscent of 3000 year old Jewish law, or Muslim Sharia law, than Christian law. You don’t seem to acknowledge that Jesus *forgave* the people that you would execute. But you have just made an awesome case for the separation of Church and state (regardless of the fact that that phrase is not found in the Constitution).

    One correction on above post: I stated that I oppose the death penalty accept in the case of defense of society. In doing so I was making the Catholic case against it.

    Personally, in our modern society, I see *no* reason for the death penalty. I believe it should be outlawed in all 50 states and at the federal level. Hence my views are in line with Langley’s.

    Out of curiosity Arturo, how many people do you think agree with your ‘kill the gays’ position that are on this website? And how do you twist the definition of love into the murder of those who don’t agree with your sexual morality (though on sexual morality, I think we believe the same thing)?

    -Lee
13. 

    13Lee

    wrote on 26 May 2006 at 21:51

    Since I do have faith in the Body of Christ (the Catholic Church) I will lay out what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about homosexuality (2357-2359):

    Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    While not in any way condoning homosexual sex, notice the tone about the teachings. The Catholic Church, following the example of Jesus Christ compassion, calls on homosexuals to courageous chastity (as are *all* unmarried persons). Just like Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church does not call for murder, but of love.

    -Lee
14. 

    14Arturo

    wrote on 27 May 2006 at 3:58

    Lee, Jesus would not have contradicted Himself nor the Father. As no one was left to accuse the adulteress legally, the only one who could legally both do it AND RIGHTEOUSLY destroy her without need for the adulterer to be present was Him — God — because He sees everything. Rather than condemn her on the spot as her judge, as He had right to do being a teacher of the Law and more importantly God, He instead displayed His Mercy, which doesn’t remove her guilt but augments His glory. Yet Christ was just. Under the conditions required by the Father for legal condemnation, Jesus would have sided with the Law as He ALWAYS did and, in fact, did also on this occasion.

    How could He not? He not only wrote it, He came to comply to it!

    Remember, Lee, it wasn’t Jesus who brought the charges against her. Her accusers abandoned the case, having been found wanting. They didn’t see the Law as God’s. They saw it as Moses’, and themselves as the special guardians of all sorts of human conventions built around it to fence it from trangression. They had no case and Jesus didn’t suddenly turn from judge into plaintiff (Where is the legality in that?). He remained a judge, albeit a merciful one, abstaining from giving the woman what she rightly deserved: death. But at no time was the Law abrogated by what Jesus did. Mercy doesn’t neutralize Justice.

    I’ve said that we ought to be merciful even gracious toward the sodomite. Yet there is a limit to what may be tolerated, and open defiance to God’s Law mustn’t be tolerated. Where do you think the American family would be today if adultery were punishable by death? Would we be loving our neighbour (specially their spouses, their children’s parents) more today than we do? You bet!
15. 

    15Arturo

    wrote on 27 May 2006 at 5:24

    Also, Lee, you mischaracterize my position on sodomy, adultery and slavery relative to the Law.

    Law and Love are not dichotomous. They’re symbiotic. Law demarcates Love, for Love is not boundless. Love depends on Law for definition. Love is the full-fill-ment of the Law, which means that the Law requires filling-in-full with something, namely with Love. Law is like a hearth. Love like the fire in it. By itself Law is cold and dead. By itself Love ravages. Together they’re the warm nucleus of God’s home. It comforts His children and consumes His enemies.

    “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Rom. 13: 8-10)

    Christ came to bestow Grace upon us so that we can love our God and our neighbor instead of hating them both. But He didn’t accomplish this by changing the standard of righteousness. Therefore, we Christians have been equipped to love our neighbor without abrogating God’s Law.

    If you can’t see that the Law of the triune God brings Life and Liberty and any other law brings ruin, then you’re not reading Scripture correctly.

    You attribute to me a wooden way for putting in use God’s Law, as if I were to employ a fossilized code of behavior adopted by a primitive people to apply mechanically and thoughtlessly to a modern civilization. If that is how you see me, then you’re wrong.

    However, if you ask me whether I love God’s Law, then the answer is yes. I love His Law because, without it, there would be nothing for Love to fulfill, and God’s gift to us of Jesus Christ — His blood shed in Love to pay what the Law required — would be meaningless.

    You seem to me, on the other hand, fearful rather than loving of God’s Law. How can that be, if you’re a believer in Christ? You speak about the State as if it had no religion, so its laws would be better than some kind of Christian Sharia. But all law imposes morality. The question is whose morality? All States appeal to a final authority above which no one can appeal. For the State that you have in mind, who is that final Authority above which no further appeal can be rendered? Is it the God of the Bible? If so, then His Law is in the Old Testament and summarized in the New Testament, but not abrogated by the latter.

    You keep pointing to the Catholic catechism, however. I guess you’re after returning us to the traditions of men. I thought the Reform took care of all that foolishness.
16. 

    16Lee

    wrote on 27 May 2006 at 6:03

    Arturo,

    The point of Jesus Christ fulfilling the Law was to bring its true meaning to the Law. You are right that Jesus Christ brought love and charity. But you again avoid my questions.

    Do you still maintain that Christ would have said about the adulterous women, if the man had been brought with them, “Kill them both”? I do not believe so.

    About Catholicism, you now make an anti-Catholic statement? How many people do you believe on this website, including our hostess, agree with you on that as well? Very few, I think. Let’s see - SC->Catholic, myself->Catholic, L->Catholic, Katelyn->Catholic, the others, within the tradition of the Reformation, seem to agree with Catholicism on the teachings of love and charity, though we may not agree on the authority of the Holy Father.

    I myself have nothing against Protestantism. I view my Protestant brethren as brothers and sisters in Christ, with our common Baptism and our common love of Christ.

    Both in advocating the death penalty for homosexuals and adulterers, I think you indeed make a point -> that someone can try to emphasize the cold Law of the Old Testament over the love, charity, and forgiveness of Jesus Christ. When you do that, you lose something, something important. You lose that one thing, love, forgiveness, kindness - that makes us truly human. This is what was missing, what Jesus Christ brought into the world.

    I love Jesus Christ very much, spend about a half hour every day in Scripture, a half hour every day in prayer.

    If we want to end this on a positive note, maybe this. I’ll pray for you, you pray for me, and then we’ll both be covered.

    -Lee
17. 

    17Lee

    wrote on 27 May 2006 at 6:32

    Arturo,

    You brought up inserting religion into the nation’s laws (forgot to address this). Actually, I agree. I have a vote, as does every citizen of this nation of legal age. I believe that my morality (for example being pro-life) has a position in law. Those that are pro-choice have their vote as well. We both make value judgements, and try to get our values enacted, whether that be against stealing, rape, incest, etc.

    The point I was trying to make is that when someone, in the name of our Lord, starts advocating the death penalty for those that disagree with them on sexual morality, you make an incredibly strong case for keeping religion out of politics. Quite frankly, I find those views scarey, and contrary to the message Jesus brought into the world.

    I apologize about not including this in the last post. I understand that you do not think I understand the Christian message correctly. If that is the case, pray for me. I will state that I, too, do not believe you understand the Christian message correctly. So I will pray for you. Let he that is wrong have his heart converted by God.

    -Lee
18. 

    18Arturo

    wrote on 27 May 2006 at 19:51

    Lee, you seem to believe that I’m after winning some type of popularity contest. Christ spoke to crowds not to win them all but to call out those who belonged to Him from among the mass of unbelievers. “Many are the called, but few the chosen.” “…Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.” I don’t measure success by numbers. I only attest to what God has said to His people.

    Also, I’m not avoiding your questions. I simply choose not to give in to your straw men. You refer to capital punishment as murder. That’s a fallacy. God calls for capital punishment for ALL violations of His Law and, in His great MERCY, He abstains from executing us on the spot for every single transgression we commit, except for those that He lists in His Word precisely as capital crimes. He also prohibits murder as grossly unlawful. Consequently, it’s a capital crime, He says. Were we to follow your definition for capital punishment, however, you’d define His call for executing a murderer as a call for murdering the murderer, thereby making God capable of contradiction. Your thinking is inconsistent, Lee. It does not align with God’s attribute of Holiness in whose context you should study His Law.

    As far as Catholicism is concerned, I’m Latino. I was raised a Catholic in Latin America, where Catholicism is serious business, thanks to dear old Spain. But I was also indoctrinated as a Protestant, and I learned what the whole protest was about. I adhere to Sola Scriptura as opposed to the traditions of men, knowing full well that didactic instruction starts and ends with the canon. Between that beginning and that end there will be much disagreement within the Body of Christ, because of our redeemed, imputedly righteous yet sinner condition that God uses to test our faith in Him and through whose testing He fulfills His will on earth throughout our lives until His final return. But this is not to say that I favor divisions and quarrels in His Church. Why? Because SCRIPTURE FORBIDS IT to Catholics and Protestants alike, my brother.

    Advocacy for obedience to God’s Law is not equivalent to a loss of Love. It is equivalent to a channeling of His will in pointing people to Him as being the absolute measure of all things and of His great, awesome Holiness, before which all knees must bow and tremble in fear and gratitude for both His Justice, Mercy and Grace, for He has been loving to not destroy us but to bear with our transgressions. If you do away with His Law, you do away with His gospel too. He authored both for His own good purpose. As Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa:

    “[T]he New Law is not distinct from the Old Law: because they both have the same end, namely, man’s subjection to God; and there is but one God of the New and of the Old Testament, according to Rm. 3:30: “It is one God that justifies circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.” [According to Augustine, the] New Law is distinct from the Old Law: because the Old Law is like a pedagogue of children, as the Apostle says (Galatians 3:24), whereas the New Law is the law of perfection, since it is the law of charity, of which the Apostle says that it is ‘the bond of perfection.’ (Colossians 3:14)”

    My prayers are with you too, Lee. I pray that you will come to discern the importance of God’s Holy Law and the utter dependence that His Love has on it to fulfill it, and that you recognize how those who God places in authority to uphold His Law must do so fully to be obedient and just.

    By me kings reign,
    And rulers decree justice.
    By me princes rule, and nobles,
    All the judges of the earth.

    Proverbs 8:15-16

    P.S. - We cannot speak as to what Jesus would have done. We can speak as to what He did do. He did know the Law. He did know her to be adulterous, requiring judgment and assignment of guilt. He did question her as to where her accusers were. He did acknowledge that no one was left to condemn her, despite her guilt. He did extend Mercy to her rather than condemn her. He did command her to end her adulterous life. Under what compulsion should she have done so? Under the authority of God’s Law on penalty of death — the same Law that would have brought a pile of stones upon her and her lover’s head had both been brought for righteous judgment upon being found in the very act of adultery. Christ is not only merciful and gracious but just. These 3 are part of the full measure of His Love and Holy Law.
19. 

    19Lee

    wrote on 27 May 2006 at 20:33

    Arturo,

    First, I wish to thank you for your prayers. As a sinner, I can use all the prayers I can get
    I wish to show you my thinking on the Old Testament in more detail, and why I come to the conclusions I do. From what I can see, Jesus Christ himself accuses the Pharisees of inserting man-made law into the Old Testament. Look again Jesus’ teaching in Mark Ch 10:2-12. Pay special attention to the high-lighted text:

    And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.

    And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

    Jesus is, quite literally, accusing the Pharisees of pressuring Moses into putting man-made law into the Old Testament (Deuteronomy) regarding marriage, in place of the original meaning of marriage contained in Genesis.

    Let me go deeper.

    An axiom in philosophy and logic is a basic fundamental unit of truth, as low as you go. You have to start somewhere Arguments and conclusions are built on top of axioms. In regard to good and evil, I have a couple of axioms of my own.

    1. What was good will always be good. Good never changes to evil.
    2. What was evil will always be evil. Evil does not change into good.

    Thus look at the following passage from Genesis. Jesus sites this passage as the teaching for the permanent nature of marriage:

    Genesis 2:24 :

    Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

    Now, look at this passage as written by Moses since he was pressured by the Pharisees:

    Deuteronomy ch 24: 1-4:
    “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.

    As per Jesus’ own words, the two passages are incompatible. God did not change evil (divorce and remarriage) into good (in Deuteronomy) and back into evil again (Mark ch 10). No, the Deuteronomy passage is false, man-made law, as indicated by Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

    Therefore, the Old Testament does contain (some) man-made law.

    This doesn’t shake my faith. I realize that the Old Testament contains Truth, religious truth (such as the sinfulness of homosexual sex) and historical truth (the Jews did execute homosexuals), and that Jesus Christ and the New Testament recast the Old in the light of love and forgiveness (he forgave those that the Jews were executing). God also chose to include the passage of Deuteronomy, despite the fact that it is man-made law. One reason - historical context. The Jews put the law in there, and Jesus corrected it. Thus the Bible is still whole and true, since if you read the whole thing the passage is corrected and the point of ‘being a Pharisee’ is made. And he gave us a Church (Matthew 16:13-19) to help us to understand the fullness of His truth.

    To tie the whole discussion together, I don’t wish to be a hippocrite. If indeed Matthew 7 is about hippocracy (and Katelyn, I’m researching that, and there is much proof to support your position), then I don’t want to be that hippocrite, and I still stand by warning you about it as well.

    Our Lord Jesus Christ died for all of us - you, me, my wife and kids, the whole world, including those who engage in homosexual sex. *I* deserve to be up on the cross, not Christ. So do you, Arturo. And yes, so does the homosexual. My problem, originally, is that you just indicated that those who engage in homosexual sex deserve death. If you had said, “They deserve death, but so do I” I would not have had a problem.

    Lastly, on Sola Scripture, I do not subscribe to that. Why? Because nowhere in the Bible does the Bible say to only believe what is in the Bible. Second, because the New Testament was not defined into a single book until 382 A.D., by Pope Damasus. Third, because then you play the game of what books should belong in the Bible - Luther wanted to get rid of the Epistle of Saint James and the Book of Revelations, but his followers were ready to leave him over that. Fourth, because the Bible says to adhere to tradition and Scripture - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

    If you were raised Catholic, then I recommend you keep an open mind. Look at Dr. Scott Hahn (whom I’ve met), a former Presbyterian minister, who through his study of the Bible found that he had to convert to Catholicsm. There is a free cd at http://www.catholicity.com on his conversion story. If your mind is open and you are searching the truth, then, indeed, order the cd and listen to it.

    I wish to reinterate that I consider Protestants as brothers and sisters. We all work for the same eternal glory. As a 4th degree member of the Knights of Columbus, I work with Protestants quite often on common projects to do the good works that God calls us to do (look at Matthew Ch 25). But you will find that we Catholics can defend our beliefs as well
    Lastly, I love Scripture, and I do read it. I have a bookshelf full of Bibles that I wish I could show you a picture of I pour over all of them. Don’t assume that because I am Catholic I have less of a command of Scripture than you do.

    Again, thank you for your prayers. And I will pray for you.

    God Bless,
    Lee
20. 

    20Arturo

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 3:58

    I’ve been speaking of God’s Law not Man’s law, which is no Law at all unless it conforms to God’s Law, Lee. Furthermore, before establishing axioms you must establish definitions. The definitions of good and evil come from Scripture. Marriage is good, BECAUSE God instituted it at Eden and said it is good, as in “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Divorce is bad BECAUSE it attempts to separate what God has joined together, as in “What God has joined together, let not man separate.” When it comes to right and wrong, Lee: Sola Scriptura.

    Indeed divorce is bad, and God places a limit to that wickedness by giving a commandment, lest it grows even more wicked before His long-suffering. That limit is the command that Moses delivered in Deut. 24:1-4. It’s as if God were saying, “Thou art sinful and wicked lawbreakers. Thou wilt transgress my marriage Law no matter what. But thou shalt not trespass beyond this line I’ve commanded my servant Moses to give you. In your sinful state of divorce, thou shalt not play musical chairs with your discarded spouses.”

    So now, what’s your point, Lee?

    Jesus is not contradicting Moses. There is no incompatibility between what Moses commanded by command of God and what God (Jesus) said to the Pharisees. Jesus is pointing to what ought to have been, as ordained by God, and Moses to what must be, as commanded by God, after Man chooses to frustrate God’s original intent set at Eden.

    What charms me some is your diligence at trying to persuade me that there exists some kind of conflicting dichotomy between God’s Law and God’s Love. You seem so afraid to accept that any barefaced reprobate should, after due process, be justly judged according to godly Law then summarily executed in accordance to God’s commandments, simply because following this ordinance offends your tender sensibilities about what Love ought to be, based on your opinion rather than according to God’s own Word.

    How can you maintain an unshaken faith building on such flimsy ground that allows for contradictions between what God said to Moses way back when and what God said in Jesus’ days? Can’t you see that you’re talking to me about a shifty god, less biblical than made in Man’s own image?

    Finally, you put a lot of words into my mouth regarding the openness of my mind, my assumptions about Catholics and my perception of you. Suffice it to be said, most of these comment that you’ve made are extremely inaccurate about what I believe. However, I do believe you’re a conventional Catholic with a strong conviction for the existence of sin, whether venial or mortal. But you’re not yet convicted of how God has commanded His people to deal with it in the larger context of civil government. Perhaps when you lose your liberty to speak up against sodomy, it might strike you that doing what God says as God says is what had kept your forefathers from becoming slaves under the wicked.
21. 

    21Katelyn Sills

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 7:04

    Arturo, I see a great gap in your logic. Please follow mine as I try to explain. If you don’t agree at the end, then please tell me which step I took incorrectly.

    All right, you say that “God calls for capital punishment for ALL violations of His Law and, in His great MERCY, He abstains from executing us on the spot for every single transgression we commit, except for those that He lists in His Word precisely as capital crimes.”

    So, let’s look at all the other crimes besides murder that God listed in His Word precisely as capital punishment crimes-

    -adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
    -homosexual behavior (Leviticus 20:13)
    -kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
    -loving anything more than God (Leviticus 20:2)
    -occult practices (Exodus 22:18 )
    -pre-marital sex (Leviticus 21:9)
    -not observing the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)
    -striking or slandering a parent (Exodus 21:15, 17)

    According to your own criteria, we should have capital punishment given for loving something more than God, not observing the Sabbath, or for slandering a parent. Right?

    Since you said that we should “Judge sinners (starting with yourself) with God’s standard”, I am wondering- how would this apply to you? Would you be the first to be executed? How many people would we have left, after this “purge”?

    And, if you don’t agree that we should execute those who break the Sabbath or slander or strike their parents (and so on), then by all means, explain why.
22. 

    22Lee

    wrote on 28 May 2006 at 13:27

    Hi Arturo,

    I wish to address two things, then be quiet for the day -> it’s my older daughter’s birthday. She’s 10
    First, you’ve indicated that it is a scandal that Christians are not unified. I agree. You should read John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint If Sola Scriptura is such a unifying force in Christianity, how come there are over 16,000 Protestant denominations all claiming to have the correct interpretation of the Bible, and their interpretations conflict? You would probably say what the rest say - “My interpretation is right”. But as any reader of this conversation will note, two people well versed in Scripture do disagree! How about billions!! The Holy Ghost cannot be the author of such confusion! Logical conclusion is that Sola Scriptura is false.

    Second, my question to you again. Where in the Bible does the Bible say to only believe what is in the Bible? I’ve shown you the opposite - 2 Thesalonians 2:15.

    And I find Katelyn’s comment very interesting, and again my point -> we all deserve death. Here’s another one -> mentioning the name of God. I will send someone else to death the moment I volunteer to die! For I also deserve it! And again, Arturo, so do you. No offense… we all do.

    -Lee
23. 

    23Arturo

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 0:19

    I’ll answer the two of you, Katelyn and Lee, with one post. Scripture has one literal meaning but innumerable significance in application. A noun is a noun, a verb is a verb in Scripture, and each carries the unique literal meaning that its author intended for it; this author being God. But the use of Scripture, its significance in the life of Man, and its applications have no measure. Its literal meaning, however, God does not leave to Man’s private interpretation because Man is fallible. That’s why Scripture interprets Scripture, and also why the two of you continue to err in your assertion that just because we’re all sinner we ought not condemn the openly reprobate to death in accordance to God’s holy commandments. (Yes, Katelyn, including the Sabbath breaker, the promiscuous, the adulterous, the blasphemer, and all others God commands the civil magistrate to execute if found guilty.)

    Where lies your fear in following God’s commandments? Is it in projecting your assumptions that unrighteous men will judge unrighteously? According to Scripture, whose is the judgment in a people who is after honoring God? Is it Man’s judgment or God’s?

    You fear that the neighbours and I, all sinners, will drag the fussy 2 year-olds out of the malls to their parents’ front yard to take stones and bash their little brains out. But the Law must be applied legally and wisely, not arbitrarily and foolishly, as this example illustrates. Let us not be naïve! I have no problem with the civil magistrate executing a Menendes brothers-like parent-hater or an out-of-control Hell’s Angels biker-type rebel leech who abuses his aged parents with impunity. God forbids such to live. And where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded. Likewise, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden. Reprobates beware: Honor father and mother…or die. Honor the Lord God your Maker…or die. Honor the marriage covenant…or die. Honor the Lord’s commandments…or die. What problem have you with this which our God calls the civil magistrate to demand of the people?

    It comes down to your insistense on one of 3 purposes of the Law, while continuing to deny the rest. The Law of God is like a mirror, a barbed wire and a guard rail. As a mirror it reflects God’s holy, righteous image against which we are to assess our personal shortcomings to be privately convicted of our sinfulness. As a barbed wire it restricts evil by inhibiting lawlessness through the threat of civil judgment and administration of public punishment. As a guard rail it lovingly guides the regenerate into a path of good works that God has already prepared for His people, after bringing them to spiritual life through Jesus Christ. You insist in adhering to the moral Law of personal conviction (the mirror) but won’t touch the judicial portion of the Law (the barbed wire).

    Fine. It’s not your job (nor mine, for that matter) to apply judicial Law unless we’re call to a magisterial role. Then it becomes our function to act as Holy God commands us within that jurisdiction. We are accountable to Him. Indeed it isn’t within the civil magistrate’s jurisdiction to judge the heart instead of what is brought to him to judge. But faced with the undeniable reality of an unrelenting reprobate’s violation, the civil magistrate is obligated to obey God’s judicial commandments no less than are we individuals required to obey the moral commandments.
24. 

    24Katelyn Sills

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 1:33

    You are so very blind, Arturo, it is amazing. I ask simple questions, and still, you are unable to answer. Why?

    Let me ask again-
    Would you be the first to be executed? How many people would we have left, after this “purge”?

    With each time you avoid answering, your hypocrisy only grows more apparent.
25. 

    25Lee

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 2:38

    *sigh*

    Arturo,

    Ok, one more time. Where in the Bible does the Bible say to only believe what is in the Bible? And no, I don’t expect you to answer, because there is no such passage.

    Second, pay particular attention to this passage:

    Luke 18:10-14
    “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’

    But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!’

    I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

    I should not have to explain why I mentioned this passage.

    Also, you speak of literal interpretation of the Bible. Tell me, which geneology of Jesus Christ is correct, the one in Saint Matthew or the one in Saint Luke? They are not the same, not even the first 14 generations. How can this be, since every word of Scripture is to be taken 100% literally??

    -Lee
26. 

    26Lee

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 2:54

    Also Arturo, I do take God’s commands seriously. Take a look at the following passage from Matthew Ch 5:3-12. Pay special attention to the high-lighted lines:

    “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

    “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

    “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

    “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

    “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

    “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

    “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

    Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

    I am merciful, and I do not see mercy as killing those who disagree with me. Thank our Lord that the vast majority of Christians - Protestant (Sola Scriptura Christians), Orthodox, and Catholic - do not agree with you. I will show mercy the same way Jesus did - by forgiving those guilty of capital crimes! As a Christian you are to follow the example of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ held back from the death penalty. If you go forward with the death penalty, you are not immitating our Lord. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

    Also, though this had nothing to do this the subject, you said I might feel differently when I can no longer speak out against homosexuality in our secular country. If that comes to pass, I will gradly be persecuted for the sake of Jesus Christ.

    God Bless,
    Lee
27. 

    27Arturo

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 18:41

    >You are so very blind, Arturo, it is amazing. I ask simple questions, and still, you are unable to answer. Why?

    I’m not blind, Katelyn. I can see what you’re trying to lead me into, and I’m not easily lured into simplistic traps by simplistic thinking. You seem to like to receive your meals with little labels attached to each piece of food on the dish. Very well. Since I’ve tried to serve you a sizeable plate to dig into and you don’t seem to be able to digest it, then I guess I’ll just have to answer your simple questions simply.

    >Would you be the first to be executed?

    No, I wouldn’t be the first to be executed, Katelyn.

    >How many people would we have left, after this “purge”?

    Only God knows how many people would remain after what you’ve labeled the “purge” (your words, not mine), Katelyn.

    Anything else?
28. 

    28Arturo

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 18:41

    Well, let’s see, Lee. Where does the Bible establish a limit to what someone may believe as orthodox, sound biblical doctrine?

    “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2)

    (Gee, I wonder if those commandments are in the Bible or if we should fetch them elsewhere?)

    “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing[.]” (1 Tim. 6:3-4a)

    (Gee, I wonder if the words of Jesus Christ are in the Bible or if we should fetch them elsewhere?)

    “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him[.]” (2 John 1:10)

    (Gee, I wonder if this doctrine is in the Bible or if we should receive it from elsewhere?)

    “If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18-19)

    (Gee, I wonder if we’re allowed to add or subtract to anything that God has already revealed in His Word or if we should go ahead and accept His prophecy verbatim?)

    As to what Paul says to the Thessalonians in 2 Thes. 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” Tell me, who taught the Thessalonians these traditions that Paul refers to and who is the ‘we’ who delivered the oral and written instruction? Were they not the Apostles? Do you see any more Apostles of Jesus moving about today? I don’t.

    But I do read the traditions they left with us in the Gospels and in the Epistles. The Canon of Scripture, Lee, is closed. The traditions of which Paul speaks were established, taught and recorded in Scripture by THE APOSTLES, men hand-picked by Jesus Himself. Past them, any other tradition is non ex cathedra, i.e. it’s man-made even if reverential. Tertullian does not carry the same authority in tradition-establishing as did Peter, John or Paul, nor would Polycarp, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Loyola or any Pope. On this we wouldn’t have agreed 500 years ago and we won’t agree on today, Vatican II notwithstanding.

    As to the reason why Matthew and Luke’s renditions of Jesus’ genealogy are different, the answer is that each follows the line of one of Jesus’ parents. The former lists the genealogy of Joseph and the latter the genealogy of Joseph’s father-in-law, i.e. Mary’s father. Of course, if you doubt the inerrancy of Scripture, then you won’t buy this explanation either, because you’d still believe that it is possible to find mistakes in God’s Word, no matter how inane that belief!

    I’m glad to hear that at a personal level you would forgive those guilty of capital punishment. With that aside, now let the magistrate obey God and do his job. Don’t get in the way. If you’re not called to carry the sword, then you don’t have to use it. But do expect the one called to carry it to use it righteously and not disobediently. In other words, call the magistrate to obey God, to do justice and to be intolerant of public wickedness and degeneracy, while you individually do also what is just and forgive your neighbor privately. Do your job and let others do theirs. Also expect the magistrate to do his job because, believe me, he expects you to do yours. Don’t believe me? Just go out and rape one of the President’s daughters, then come back and let me know if the sword won’t be rightly pursuing after you.

    Lastly, it is foolish of you to throw away casually your liberty, when God has so lovingly bestowed it and its stewardship responsibility to you and your future generation. Use it to speak out against evil and call our civil protectors to task while you can, rather than squander it away by being officious about how glad you’d be in being persecuted for losing it because of negligence. Who says that if you won’t stand up and call the government to do what is right when you’re free to do so, then you’ll do it when you’re under persecution by an evil government?
29. 

    29Lee

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 20:13

    Nice try, Arturo
    Is that the best you can do? As to the one example:

    “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2)

    Hmm… Old Testament… guess we throw out the new. Oh wait, that makes us Jews! Not Christians!

    I was particularly amused by you trying to quote Revelations out of context. That passage refers to the prophecy in Revelations. What makes it so amusing is that Luther tried to throw that book out. Also, if that did apply to the whole New Testament - which, again, did not exist at the time - then Luther is in a whole heap of trouble for adding in the word ‘alone’ after the word ‘faith’ in Romans, when the Holy Ghost did not move Paul to write it at all in the Greek. So if you had not taken it out of context, well, I feel sorry for Martin Luther.

    Also, the best and the brightest Protestant scholars tried to face this when Scott Hahn pressed them (and he wanted convinced). The best they can do - it’s our starting point. Pay careful attn to the text below.

    Do not be afraid, or run, from the tough questions. Any intellectually honest Christian is going to ask is there any truth to Sola Scriptura, including intellectually honest Protestants. Scott Hahn, a Presbyterian minister and college professor, was faced with the question. He didn’t run from it. He turned into it, took it on, researched it, called everyone he knew on it, and, in the end, he converted to Catholicism despite that he was risking everything he had (friends, a career, alienating his wife, everything). The following is a section from his book “Rome Sweet Home”, a story of his and his wife’s conversion, written in a relaxed, easy to understand style… (Scott, I hope I fully accredited you and your wife )

    “Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism” - by Scott and Kimberly Hahn
    This section by Scott, starting on page 50

    The class I taught on the Gospel of John had gone so well that they asked me to teach some more classes the following semester. In fact, they asked me to go full-time next term, and those classes went even better.

    In my Church history class, one of my better students (an ex-Catholic) made a presentation on the Council of Trent. Following the presentation, he posed a whopper-stopper question I’d never heard before.

    He said, “Professor Hahn, you’ve shown us that sola fide isn’t scriptural - how the battle-cry of the Reformation is off-base when it comes to interpreting Paul. As you know, the other battle cry of the Reformation was sola scriptura: the Bible alone is our authority, rather than the Pope, Church councils or Tradition. Professor, where does the Bible teach that ‘Scripture alone’ is our sole authority?”

    I looked at him and broke into a cold sweat.

    I had never heard that question before. In seminary I had a reputation for being a sort of socratic gadfly, always asking the toughest questions, but this one had never occurred to me.

    I said what any professor caught unprepared would say, “What a dumb question!” As soon as the words left my mouth, I stopped dead in my tracks, because I’d sworn that, as a teacher, I would never say those words.

    But the student was not intimidated - he knew it wasn’t a dumb question. He looked me right in the eyes and said, “Just give me a dumb answer.”

    I said, “First, we would go to Matthew 5:17. Then we would look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17, ‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.’ And we’d look at what Jesus says about tradition in Matthew 15.”

    His response was penetrating. “But Professor, Jesus wasn’t condemning all tradition in Matthew 15 but rather corrupt tradition. When 2 Timothy 3:16 says ‘all Scripture’, it doesn’t say ‘only Scripture’ is profitable. Prayer, evangelizing and many other things are also essential. And what about 2 Thessalonians 2:15?”

    “Yeah, 2 Thessalonians 2:15″, I said weakly. “What does that say again?”

    “Paul tells the Thessalonians, ‘So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.’”

    I shot back, “You know, John, we’re straying from the topic. Let’s move on and I’ll share something on this next week.”

    I could tell he wasn’t satisfied. Neither was I. As I drove home on the beltway that night, I stared up at the stars and moaned, “Lord, what’s happening? Where does Scripture teach sola scriptura?”

    There were two pillars on which Protestants based their revolt against Rome - one had already fallen, the other was shaking. I was scared.

    I studied all week long. I got nowhere. So I called some friends. I got no farther. Finally, I called two of the best theologians in America as well as some of my former professors.

    Those I consulted were shocked that I would raise such a question. They were even more dismayed that I wasn’t satisfied with their answers.

    To one professor I said, “Maybe I’m suffering from amnesia, but somehow I’ve forgotten the simple reasons we believe the Bible is our sole authority.”

    “Scott, what a dumb question!”

    “Just give me a dumb answer.”

    “Scott,” he responded, “you really can’t demonstrate sola scriptura from Scripture. The Bible doesn’t expressly declare that it is the Christian’s only authority. In other words, Scott, sola scriptura is essentially the historic confession of the Reformers, over and against the Catholic claim that it is Scripture plus Tradition. For us, then, it is a theological presupposition, our starting point rather than a proven conclusion.”

    ….

    “Isn’t this ironic? We insist that Christians can believe only what the Bible teaches. But the Bible doesn’t teach that it is our only authority!”

    I asked another theologian, “What for you is the pillar and foundation of truth?”

    He said, “The Bible, of course!”

    “Then why does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?”

    “You set me up, Scott!”

    “I’m the one feeling set up!”

    “But, Scott, which church?”

    “How many applicants for the job are there? I mean, how many churches even claim to be the pillar and foundation of truth?”

    and on and on…

    In summary, Sola Scriptura is a Protestants ‘axiom’, his starting point. And if that’s what a Protestant wants to believe, then so be it. I know many holy and wonderful Protestants I married one! Though she later converted to Catholicism. But I am in the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’. I do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, and insisting that this non-Biblical concept must be accepted by all Christians is just silly.

    Arturo, Jesus Christ started a Church, the Catholic Church, built on Peter and refered to in Matthew Ch 16:13-19. Also, he invested it with the pillar and foundation of Truth! -> 1 Timothy 3:15

    You can be blind to this if you want. But the only time the Gospels mention Jesus Christ writing is in John Ch 8, which you twist in circles in order to justify your attacks on homosexuals. And Katelyn’s question is relevant. I know you won’t answer, and you’ve admitted your mind is not open, but the Pharisee praying next to the tax collector… who do you sound more like. Who did Jesus Christ support? Where is your humbleness, your admitting that you are a sinner? I for one know I deserve death. Do you? Wait, you won’t answer that, will you?

    Also, if you pay any attention at all to the Acts of the Apostles, you will notice they hand on their ‘powers’ through laying on of hands, passing it from one person to the next. Sometimes they give the person all their gifts that Jesus gave them, sometimes only a limited amount. The only two Churches that can track this ‘apostolic succession’ all the way back to the Apostles are the Orthodox and the Catholics! My Church was started in 33 A.D. When was yours started? Oh wait, you probably won’t answer that.

    -Lee
30. 

    30Lee

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 20:17

    Arturo,

    Lastly, you’ve proved something to me I did not know. I know that when society verges radically towards atheism (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) tens of millions of people die. I would have never thought before that the same thing could happen if radical fundamentalist Christians came to power (and I feel bad about insulting the word fundamentalist, since most fundamentalists wouldn’t agree with you, and I know several), but you’ve proven me wrong. The only thing that changes is who dies. That is a scarey thought. And that is not my God.

    -Lee
31. 

    31Lee

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 21:05

    Arturo, I was going to stop, but I kept looking at your answers and got more amused. Let me explain why
    “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2)

    Jesus (Son of God and God Himself) did not write any Scripture! He passed on the commandments (His Word) to His Church. This doesn’t express New Testament Scripture, if it did Peter, Paul and the rest would be in serious trouble, for they are not God! And the Word is a Person, Jesus Christ, who invested His Truth in a Church, the Catholic Church.

    “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing[.]” (1 Tim. 6:3-4a)

    This doesn’t address Sola Scriptura at all! The fact that you try to use it shows desperation!

    “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him[.]” (2 John 1:10)

    Again, this has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura!! It uses the word ‘doctrine’, which Jesus Christ gave to the pillar and foundation of Truth -> His Church!!

    Also, the successors of the Apostles do exist. I suggest you read the Acts of the Apostles! They passed on their gifts, given by God, to those they demeemed to be leaders. Some they gave all their powers to, others just some. Read the whole thing, you’ll be surprised There are only two Churches that can trace their Apostolic roots back to Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church (Saints Peter and Paul) and the Orthodox Church (Saint Andrew). Of course, the rock of the Church was Peter, and his successors.

    I do want to thank you for something though, trusting that the Catholic Church ‘got it right’ when it said which books would go into the New Testament! So thank you for your faith. Of course, by what authority did the Catholic Church make such a decision??? Hmm, interesting question. The Catholic Church, Christ’s Church, used Sacred Tradition, to make the decision on what Scripture would go into the New Testament. Get rid of the ‘foundation and pillar of truth’, the Church, and you cut off the limb you are sitting on. But you have more faith in the Catholic Church than Luther did, who wanted to get rid two books. So in that I thank you.

    BTW, at least the theologian Hahn talked to was honest, and admitted that Sola Scriptura was a presupposition that Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers had.

    I don’t mean to be obnoxious, since I have a ton of holy, God-filled Protestant friends. If we all follow Jesus Christ to the best of our ability, then he will love us with open arms But as Arturo’s wanting to kill tens of millions of people (through the judicial system, of course) - adulterers, homosexuals, those that slander a parent, etc - using Sola Scriptura you can actually draw the opposite message than what Jesus our Lord brought into the world .

    -Lee
32. 

    32Lee

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 22:00

    As to the reason why Matthew and Luke’s renditions of Jesus’ genealogy are different, the answer is that each follows the line of one of Jesus’ parents. The former lists the genealogy of Joseph and the latter the genealogy of Joseph’s father-in-law, i.e. Mary’s father.

    Um… no. The only difference between the way the two geneologies start out is that Matthew mentions that Jesus is son of Joseph husband of Mary, but it explicitly states that Jacob is the father of Joseph. So it follows Joseph’s line (who’s my patron saint, btw ).

    Luke also follows Joseph’s line -> Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli… … so they both follow Joseph’s line. This explicitly states that Jesus is the son of Joseph. Please please please read the Scripture before you make declarations about it! BTW, Mary’s mother was Saint Anne, and Saint Anne’s husband was Saint Joachim.

    Okay, here the first 14 generations (both following Joseph’s line) as described in Matthew 1:12-16 (I’m using the last 14 generations) and Luke 3:23-26 (again only 14 generations).

    Matthew
    **
    Jesus
    Joseph
    Jacob
    Matthan
    Eleazar
    Eliud
    Achim
    Zadok
    Azor
    Eliakim
    Abiud
    Zerubbabel
    Shealtiel
    Jochaoniah

    Luke
    **
    Jesus
    Joseph
    Heli
    Matthan (this is the same)
    Levi
    Melchi
    Jannai
    Joseph
    Mattathias
    Amos
    Nahum
    Esli
    Naggi
    Maath

    So no, they are not the same, literally speaking, yet they supposedly follow the same tree. Christian scholars of all stripes and colors (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) have struggled over this quite a lot!

    -Lee
33. 

    33FreeAgencyRules

    wrote on 29 May 2006 at 23:20

    Since we all believe in faith, and believing in which church is correct, is also a matter of faith, then I for one am glad we all have so many different denominations to choose from.

    I for one found this discussion very interesting and would submit the following:

    Like everyone we all conclude facts based upon assumptions. We usually accept the intutive as conclusive.

    We all color our world with expectations. We tend to accept as credible any evidence that supports our beliefs. We also give little credence to evidence or ideas that contradict or challenges what we believe.

    Let me give you an example:

    Four paperback volumes of Sherlock Holmes are standing upon the shelf in sequential order. Each volume is 2-inches thick.

    A bookworm in a straight line eats his way from page one of Volume 1 to the last page of Volume IV. How many inches of Sherlock Holmes mysteries did the bookworm eat?

    FAR.
34. 

    34Lee

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 1:48

    FAR,

    The bookworm could be eating in a diagonal line (still straight as an arrow though), or he could be eating straight through Remember FAR, we’re both logical minded software engineers lol.

    My Protestant friends don’t believe in the authority of the Pope, and I don’t have a problem with that. I have friends with different views than mine. I believe in freedom of religion, as shown in the Vatican II documents. My Protestant friends respect my beliefs as well. That’s America for you
    If I offended the Protestant or atheistic readers out there, I apologize. I also apologize to Katelyn for me and Arturo pretty much dominating this thread.

    God Bless,
    -Lee
35. 

    35Katelyn Sills

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 2:24

    FAR- assuming that by a straight line you mean a non-diagonal one, the answer is 4 inches.

    Even though I would like to respond to all the comments fully, I will not be able to do so tonight because I have an essay due tomorrow.
    Until tommorrow,
36. 

    36FreeAgencyRules

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 3:25

    All,

    The answer is “It all depends.” Most people, (90%), think the answer is 8″ and about 10%, think the answer is 4″, but the real answer is “It all depends upon your “assumption” of how the books are placed on the shelf….All bindings facing the observer, answer 4″, or all bindings facing away from the observer, answer 8″, but there are more possibilities depending upon your assumptions.

    We believe what we believe based upon our assumptions since facts are usually derived from assumptions that we make unless we are present to ask clarifying questions like how are the books placed upon the shelves as far as the direction of the binding?

    Again I repeat:

    Like everyone we all conclude facts based upon assumptions. We usually accept the intutive as conclusive.

    We all color our world with expectations. We tend to accept as credible any evidence that supports our beliefs. We also give little credence to evidence or ideas that contradict or challenges what we believe.

    FAR.
37. 

    37FreeAgencyRules

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 3:29

    Oh, less than 1% get the real answer “that it depends upon the binding direction.”

    FAR.
38. 

    38Arturo

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 3:46

    Look, Lee, you’re a devout Catholic, which means that, by definition, you place greater credence on romish Catholicism than on Scripture, that is to say, you place greater weight on tradition than on God’s Word. You’ve not acknowledged once the inerrancy of Scripture. Also you constantly keep reasoning inductively. (Just look at all the text you throw at me! Try to be pithier, please). But naturally your inductive thinking only leads to inferences that are not absolute. We’re after an absolute, Lee. Is Scripture the single most revelation of the rule of Christian faith or isn’t it?

    Start with true premises, Lee, then deduce your way soundly to the true conclusion, the way Augustine and Aquinas used to do!

    We share a starting point: Jesus Christ. What did He say about Scripture?

    “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35); “Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished” (Matt. 5:18 ); “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35) Do you think Jesus took Scripture lightly? He knew it better at 12 than any bemused seminary professor out there today.

    Now, is it possible to nullify Scripture? Yes, it is (Mark 7:13). It’s possible to nullify the Word of God by way of religious traditions, a la Phariseea. Therefore, it is Scripture instead of the Church that determines what an acceptable tradition is. Beware of unscriptural (unbiblical) traditions, Lee. Scripture is the standard. It has inherent authority. It derives none of it from the Church, because Scripture is God-breathed. (2 Tim. 3:16)

    Conversely, the Church derives its authority from Scripture, i.e. from God’s breath, and will nullify it by piling human traditions onto it which, by the way, Scripture forbids the Church to do. Is it then any wonder that too many ecclesiastical traditions are contradictory (would you like me to do an inductive proof for you and list Popes ad infinitum who contradicted each other over the centuries?) while Scripture on the contrary is integral?

    Now, Lee, it seems to me that you’ve been building a red herring long enough. This discussion isn’t about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. It is about intolerance of bare-faced sodomitical evil in our society and the responsibility of the civil magistrate to obey God’s Law and punish the wicked before they defile the land completely, such that it vomits us out. (Lev. 18:28 ) I’m not against Mercy. I’m not against Grace. That would be outrageous! But I’m against injustice. The State must be just, and to be so it must obey God because only God knows what is righteous, and He has tasked the Government to apply His Law for Justice. His Word has revealed that Righteousness, that way to Justice, in His LAW. Are you for the State being obedient to His Law or not? Are you for the Church being the conscience of the State and telling it with conviction, without hesitation, without shame, “Do what God’s Law commands you to do” or are you after the State behaving like an individual, which it will never do because God never designed it to behave like that any way?

    So where do you stand on that issue…pithily please.
39. 

    39FreeAgencyRules

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 5:08

    I would like to contribute a little here.

    In the old testament days, the government of Israel was made from rightous Jews who were worthy of discernig the law of Moses and it’s punishments.

    I was taught that the Jewish traditions have it that the Jews were told that the “death penality” was the “maximum” sentenance for most crimes because the Jews had been reveled much, which placed them under greater light and greater punishments, but that it was seldom applied except in murder cases.

    Today we are not all Jews, and we also did not see Moses or the Burning Bush and neither have we been part of the Choosen People so as to have rightous judges in our midst.

    This type of environment is not conducive to the Old Testament laws, just as it was not conducive during the New Testament days.

    Many of the old Laws are set aside when we are ruled by wicked men instead of men who are just and God fearing.

    If you think about the scriptures, they are really about “mans inhumanity towards man, and governments inhumanity towards man.”

    Just consider the Golden Rule and the Greatest Commandment. Both are about how we treat our fellow man. Would you want to be stoned to death for hollering at your parents when you were young? If the answer is No, then that is your answer.

    Again, my beliefs are a little different in that I don’t think the Old Testament is at odds with the New, just that the Leviticus and other laws were talking about the Maximum penality and not that they always had to go that far.

    Also, since we cannot read the origional manuscripts in the language they were written in, then we cannot say that they are literally the word of God because of possible mis-translation of his true meaning and possible errors in the scrolls that were translated into Greek and Latin.

    Just my belief and opinion. When we talk about religion we cannot talk about knowledge as fact, since we take most on faith. Faith that the people who put together the Books of the Bible were inspired to keep only the correct ones and reject the ones that were not supposed to be in there. But that is an assumption since we cannot ask them who gave them their charge. Did they get it from Angels or from God directly or just inspiration. If just inspiration then is it possible they could be mislead or mistaken. Again we take it on faith that they did or they didn’t.

    FAR.
40. 

    40Lee

    wrote on 30 May 2006 at 12:48

    Arturo,

    I’ll try to do this “pithily”, though that’s not normally in my nature
    First, the Church wrote the Scripture, not the other way around. The Church proceeds the Scripture, if only by a few decades. Jesus did not write them -> Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James/etc wrote them. Not all of them were Christ’s Apostles, but rather followers of the Apostles (Mark and Luke). This was Christ’s Church. So the Church contained Jesus’ teachings, and contained His Truth.

    Second, not everything Jesus did and taught are contained in the Scriptures. The Scriptures say so!

    John Ch 21:24-25

    This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

    Lastly, the Church explains things differently than I do. One, because they have all the time in the world (2000 years and counting) to do so. According to the Catechism, everything that is in the Bible (Old and New) is what God wanted to be written. Second, the Churc