Biblical Incest

[NotWorthy]

I think something just came to me! Jesus said where three are gathered in my name I will be there! These gatherings were supposed to be the church, not the big buildings where people attend- they didn’t have buildings to meet in, except their houses- those people gathering in Christ’s name would have been believers in him, and them containing the Holy Spirit (Faith in Christ brings the Holy Spirit right?! =D) would be moved by him, I think THAT is the Church and that THAT is the object Christ will remain with til the end of time! Christ will be with all of his believers to the end of time, why didn’t I think of that before?

That’s a great conclusion. That conclusion has led to hundreds of churches each with a different 'take" on the truth.

Let’s see where this leads us. If the dispute can’t be settled, “Take it to the Church”.

Let’s pretend a Catholic man married a Lutheran woman and she got pregnant before she was “ready” to have children. The wife plans to abort the baby, much to the husband’s dismay. After much argument, they look to the bible, read Matthew 18, and decide to take it to the Church.

So the husband and wife hops into the car and he drives her to St. Mary’s Catholic Church at the corner of 1st and Main. The husband is psyched because he knows what his pastor will say.

But when the woman gets out of the car, she simply walks a block to St. Mark’s Lutheran Church, talks to her pastor of her desire to abort the baby, and he says, “Sure, if that’s what you want. It’s your body”.

Do you see the dilemma that your little revelation has proven. Your conclusion has caused the very “break off” from the original Church that Christ built.

And what’s more, if this example had occurred in any of the last 5 centuries, the husband’s Church would have been against the abortion (of course, the Catholic Church would have forbid this abortion for 20 centuries…). But the wife’s church would have changed it’s approval of the abortion in recent decades.

What changed?

And what’s more, “What hasn’t changed”? Which of these churches is more likely to have been the Church that Christ built?

 

[NotWorthy]

I thank God you are all here, I don’t think I would have ever come to that conclusion on my own… I think I’m going to take a break for a bit though

God Bless

And I thank God that you are here, Asgaut. Keep researching, my friend. And always keep Him as your focus!

 

[1ke]

Hmmm. It seems to me that your own words proves otherwise:

The Jews had a very narrow vision of what the 5th commandment entailed-- they lived under “an eye for an eye”. That was not God’s command but Moses’s. Jesus explained what the 5th commandment encompassed-- remember what he said about divorce “it was not so from the beginning…”. The Jews had some misunderstandings, Jesus taught them the true meaning of God’s Law.

I’m not sure of your position here-- are you asserting that God’s Divine Law does change? That is contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

[1ke]

Oh brother, another cliche comeback… That’s all you ever say to justify your beliefs… “Personal Interpretation!” yet you never provide any proof-

It is you who must provide proof. No biblical scholar for 2000 years has come up with such a stretch of an interpretation. Yet you-- anonymous internet guy-- just “poof” come up with an interpretation that no one asserts in the history of the Church. So, the burden of proof is on you that you know more than the Church and 2000 years of biblical scholars.

Jeremiah refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Don’t give me that PI non-sense.

It’s not nonsense. Personal interpretation is dangerous, and your novel interpretation of the entire cosmos based on huge leaps and assumptions and a couple of verses of scripture shows that.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Jews had a very narrow vision of what the 5th commandment entailed-- they lived under “an eye for an eye”. That was not God’s command but Moses’s. Jesus explained what the 5th commandment encompassed-- remember what he said about divorce “it was not so from the beginning…”. The Jews had some misunderstandings, Jesus taught them the true meaning of God’s Law.

I’m not sure of your position here-- are you asserting that God’s Divine Law does change? That is contrary to Catholic teaching.

I’m not sure of your position. You told me to look to the Catechism to show that Jesus did not change the Commandment “not to kill”, and I show you where the Catechism tells us that Jesus DID change this requirement - he added anger and hatred to the prohibition, not just refrain from killing.

God simply said “Thall shalt not Murder” as part of the requirements to be in the Mosaic Covenant.

Jesus tells us that is not enough to be in the New Covenant. The 10 Commandments (other than the first 3) are outward signs. They don’t take any feelings or inward righteousness to follow. The Beatitudes concentrate on the inner being to guide our outward actions. That’s why it’s not enough simply to refrain from killing. We must eliminate the anger that can grow in us to the point of wishing to kill or injure others.

This does mean that God has changed. It simply means that one Covenant had one requirement, and the new covenant has an even stricter set of requirements. The failure of the Old Covenant shows that our outer actions aren’t enough to make us righteous in the eyes of God. It takes an inner conversation such as the one that Jesus talks of on the Sermon on the Mount.

Think of it this way. Are 5th graders prepared to learn Calculus? No. They need to learn 5th grade math. That doesn’t mean that the 5th grade math is false when they learn Calculus in 12 grade. As a matter of fact, the 5th grade math is necessary if they want to comprehend Calculus in 12th grade.

 

[1ke]

Yes, he explicitly taught them that which was already implicit in the Law.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, he explicitly taught them that which was already implicit in the Law.

Where were the Beatitudes implicit in the law? For instance, where does the OT Law cover anger, lust, love of an enemy?

And why does the Catechism say “Jesus added the prohibitions against anger and hatred” (paraphrasing). If you add to something, you are changing it in some way.