Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

And you are conflating a wife with inanimate belongings. A wife is a soul made in God’s image. A different order of being than an animal or a thing.

No, because I never even inferred that a wife is at the same level of inanimate belongings. Saying a wife “belongs” to her husband (and vice versa) is based on Song of Songs:

“My beloved is mine, and I am his” (Song of Songs 2:16)
"“I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” (Song of Song 6:3)

So, is the author of the inspired book of Song of Songs equating his wife with his “property,” because he says she is “mine”? If not, that is all Deuteronomy 5 is saying when it commands “do not covet” & then list all the things that are “his” (property, wife, etc), because no one has the right to covet anything that belongs to him.

We’re not talking about the Song of Songs, we’re talking about the 9th and Tenth Commandments which you want to combine to lump the wife amongst the man’s belongings.

 

[Gab123]

The Old Testament is Jewish and would exist if Christ had never come.

The purpose of the Old Testament was to prepare for the coming of Christ. Thus the Old Testament is full of typology for what was to come in the New Testament…

 

[RaisedCatholic]

We’re not talking about the Song of Songs, we’re talking about the 9th and Tenth Commandments which you want to combine to lump the wife amongst the man’s belongings.

You’re missing the point of why I brought Song of Songs up, which is it is saying the same thing the Tenth Commandment is saying: the husband belongs to the wife & vice versa (“I am my beloved, & my beloved is mine”), but NOT AMONG THE MAN’S BELONGINGS. I don’t why you keep accusing me of what I am NOT saying, even when I have explained this numerous times to you.

 

[De_Maria]

You’re missing the point of why I brought Song of Songs up, which is it is saying the same thing the Tenth Commandment is saying: the husband belongs to the wife & vice versa (“I am my beloved, & my beloved is mine”), but NOT AMONG THE MAN’S BELONGINGS. I don’t why you keep accusing me of what I am NOT saying, even when I have explained this numerous times to you.

By combining those two commandments, you are saying that the woman is merely one of man’s possessions.

 

[JimG]

In any case, the bible does not specifically number the commandments. So how anyone numbers them is not defined by scripture.

 

[De_Maria]

So, is the author of the inspired book of Song of Songs equating his wife with his “property,” because he says she is “mine”? If not, that is all Deuteronomy 5 is saying when it commands “do not covet” & then list all the things that are “his” (property, wife, etc), because no one has the right to covet anything that belongs to him.

The author of the Song of Songs would understand why the commandments not to covet are divided into 2 separate categories.

 

[CathoRick]

Certainly the New Testament is Catholic. The Old Testament is Jewish and would exist if Christ had never come.

If there were no Christ, there would be no Old Testament… or anything else, for that matter (see: John 1:1). Even if we were to ignore that little technicality, that doesn’t change the fact that the OT prophesies the coming of Christ, and the NT is the fulfillment of that prophesy. There is no OT without the NT.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

By combining those two commandments, you are saying that the woman is merely one of man’s possessions

Except I didn’t say that, & explained just the opposite, which I even boldfaced certain words to pull it out of the text.

The author of the Song of Songs would understand why the commandments not to covet are divided into 2 separate categories.

No, the author would understand that his wife belonged to him, just as he belonged to her, which is what Genesis 2 means by “cleave.”

 

[De_Maria]

Except I didn’t say that, & explained just the opposite, which I even boldfaced certain words to pull it out of the text.

Your explanation contradicts your actions.

No, the author would understand that his wife belonged to him, just as he belonged to her, which is what Genesis 2 means by “cleave.”

The author of the Song of Songs would understand that a relationship with a spouse is of a higher order than a mere possession of things.

And, again, repeating your error endlessly is not going to make it right.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The author of the Song of Songs would understand that a relationship with a spouse is of a higher order than a mere possession of things.

Which, again, I NEVER said a wife is a “possession” of a husband, no-more than a husband is a “possession” of a wife. You are the one who keeps claiming I am saying that, which is a strawman. So, just so we are clear - a wife is NOT her husbands “possession,” but she does belong to him, as he belongs to her.

 

[MiserereMei]

@RaisedCatholic, I do hope you intend on responding to me in our conversation.

After saying that, for the sake of argument, I could grant you no images of the Father (let’s ignore the fact that God commanded the Israelites to make images of spiritual beings without a physical form in Exodus 25), I reminded you that the Son was enfleshed, and, using the reasoning you provided as I understood it, saying:

So an image or statue of Jesus should logically have the same moral standing as a statue of a general or a photograph of a family member.

So, I am curious: do you then not have a problem with reverencing an icon (whether flat and painted or as a statue) of Jesus, or do you have a problem with something like the Lincoln Memorial or my photo of my wife?

Because, if we are to understand “you shall not make graven images” as a separate commandment apart from the First, it means there are really only two logically consistent options from which we may choose. I am curious which you take.

1. We must reject the Second Council of Nicaea and reject all images, including memorials, photographs of loved ones, and all visual art; or
2. We must focus on the term “graven,” and reject statuary of any kind, though flat images may be objects of reverence.

The making of images and the bowing down to them are separate verbal units within the same statement you want to say is a separate Commandment. “You shall not make” and “you shall not bow down” are two different sentences.

The reason Catholics and Lutherans keep “you shall have no other gods” and “you shall not make graven images” the same commandment is because the latter is immediately followed by the statement “you shall not bow down and worship them”, that is: you shall not make for yourselves other gods and worship them. Thus, the whole paragraph beginning with “you shall not make graven images” is an explanation of “You shall have no other gods”, and is thus not a separate idea or Commandment.

When you combine this with the fact that it is not necessary that Paul’s quoting “you shall not covet” means he intends it to be a single Commandment (a statement which goes beyond what the text can allow), it means that the Catholic/Lutheran numbering is at least allowable, especially because the numbering systems for the Commandments are all arbitrary anyway.

 

[Gorgias]

A big difference is the Roman Catholic denomination has removed the 2nd . commandment
not making idols that that we worship. And split the 9th into 2 commandment.

Given that the Catholic Church precedes any of the Protestant denominations, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Protestants are the ones who changed or split the commandments in a different way?

The Assembly of God. SDA. Baptist. Pentecostal. And others are Catholics.

Tell ya what: go up to any of those and ask them "are you Baptists Catholics? " I’ll bet you a paycheck they’ll respond with horror “no! We’re Christians!”

So, the OT canon was not something that was established during the church age, but prior to that

Actually, that’s not true. The Jewish OT canon was in flux in Jesus’ time. Scholars used to think that there was a “council of Jamnia”, at which the canon was definitively established, but the theory that this actually happened then and there has since been discarded.

So, it’s not true that “the OT canon was established prior to ‘the church age’”. There were many traditions. (In fact, we see the effects of this dynamic in the Gospels – the Sadducees accepted only the Torah as canonical, and therefore, they rejected doctrines that the Pharisees (and Jesus) accepted as true.)

 

[De_Maria]

Which, again, I NEVER said a wife is a “possession” of a husband, …

Then you ought to understand why there is a separate commandment for the coveting of a wife and the coveting of possessions.

 

[vivnes]

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (St. Augustine; Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus: 5, 6)

‘This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law that is forever: all they that keep it shall come to life: but they that have forsaken it, to death.’ (Bar 4:1)

“Therefore, in the text above, sacred Scripture is commended for three things: first, for the authority by which it motivates, when it says: this is the book of the commandments of God . Second, for the eternal truth by which it instructs, when it says: and the law that is forever . Third, for the usefulness by which it allures us, when it says: all they that keep it shall come to life .” (St. Thomas Aquinas; HicEst. 1, p. 4)

“The Old Testament is divided according to the teaching of the commandments, because the commandment has two kinds, namely, the coercive and the warning. The coercive is the command of a king who can punish transgressors: as the roaring of a lion, so also is the dread of a king (Prov 20:2). The warning is the precept of a father who must instruct: have you children? Instruct them (Sir 7:25). The precepts of the king have two kinds, namely, one that establishes law; and another that induces one to observe the statutes of the law, which is usually done through the proclamation of his heralds and ambassadors. Hence, three kinds of precepts are distinguished, namely, the king’s, the herald’s, and the father’s. And according to these three, the Old Testament is divided into three parts, as Jerome says in his prologue to the book of Kings.” (Ibid.; 2, p. 3)

 

[Prodigal1984]

It should be said 3 out of those 14 books aren’t in Catholic Bibles anymore either though, since they were removed from the appendix of the Douay Rheims in 1752. 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh are part of the Protestant Apocrypha( in 1611 KJV) even as Catholics consider it the Apocrypha as well.

 

[Gorgias]

Why weren’t the Commandments recorded in an orderly numbered fashion in the Bible to prevent all this bickering and editing?

There are no numbers in the Decalogue itself.

If they were given on tablets of stone surely it could have been recorded exactly as God wrote.

Moses broke those tablets.

Later, he created new ones, based on a second round of dictation from God. If you have a problem with Moses’ transcribing skills, take it up with him…

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Then you ought to understand why there is a separate commandment for the coveting of a wife and the coveting of possessions.

Since the commandment is to not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor - which would include his possessions that belongs to him & his NON-POSSESSION wife who also belongs to him - there is no need for them to be separate commandments, since both of these belong to him. Simply saying “you shall not covet” covers anything, and anyone, who belongs to your neighbor. Ergo, only need for a single commandment, which - again - why Paul said, “you shall not covet”…period.

 

[De_Maria]

There are two commandments. One not to covet wife. The other not to covet possessions. You’re quibbling is not going to change that. We follow the Catholic Church. Not your erroneous opinions.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So, I am curious: do you then not have a problem with reverencing an icon (whether flat and painted or as a statue) of Jesus, or do you have a problem with something like the Lincoln Memorial or my photo of my wife?

Let’s begin with citing the entire commandment:

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

Yes, the commandment is commanding not to worship “them,” referring to the idol (or “graven image” which God commands us not to “make”). And it specifically commands “the likeness of what is in heaven or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” is what the Israelites should not “make for themselves.” This would exclude anything God Himself would command, such as the Cherubim & other “heavenly” beings, since God is the One giving the commandment. The Second Commandment is commanding them not to make the graven image “themselves,” without a specific commandment from God to do otherwise.

Although Jesus was God “in the flesh,” we don’t really know what He looked like. And since He is God, creating a “heavenly image” of Him without God giving us a command to do so, would be violation of that Second Commandment, since the image - itself - could be revered, bowed down to, & worshiped, which was the concern of God in this same Commandment, which has been done by countless people throughout church history.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

This would not include family photos, or even statues of Lincoln, since they are not deities at risk of being worshiped. Of course, there are those who do worship non-religious carvings. But that was not the concern of God, since in Deuteronomy 32:4 it was carving of the “God of Israel that brought you out of the land of Egypt” that they worshiped & sacrificed, which God told Moses they said “This is your God, O Israel that brought you out of the land of Egypt” (v.8). And just so there is no misunderstanding, Moses reiterates that the LORD was HE “brought them out of the land of Egypt” (v.11).

So, it’s not that God was commanding “you shall not make graven images of false gods & not worship them…but it’s okay to make craven images of Me, just you can’t worship them either.” If this was the case, we would see examples in Scripture of images of God being created in the OT. But we don’t. God states in the Commandment, He is a “jealous God” Who doesn’t want anyone bowing down to even an image that represents Him, since that is not the manner of worship God wants. He wants worship directed towards HIM.

The apostle John later Jesus is the “true God” (1 John 5:20) & stay away from idols (graven images)(v.21). He contrasts idols with the true God Who is to be worshiped to directly, not as an image. As one pastor put it, “Reducing the infinite God to any physical likeness was intolerable, as the people found out in their attempt to cast God as a golden calf (Exodus 32). The mode or fashion of worship appropriate to only one Lord forbids any attempt to represent or caricature Him by use of anything He has made. The worship of man-made representations was nothing less than hatred of God” (Exodus 4:5).

While the numbering of the “10” Commandments may seem arbitrary, the “you shall not’s” towards the end of the commandments (“you shall not murder” / “you shall not commit adultery” / “you shall not steal”) are clearly separate commandments & are repeated in the NT (Romans 13:9). But if you notice, Paul only says (“you shall not covet”) in this same verse. IOW, he doesn’t list “you shall not covet your wife” & “you shall not cover your neighbor’s goods” as separate commandments, like he does the other “you shall not’s.” See also Matthew 19:18-19. Plus, in this “10th” Commandment, Exodus 20:17 & Deuteronomy 21 reverse their order, indicating this is a single commandment, and end with “nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

So, despite Catholics & Lutherans having the same “10 Commandments,” they end up with only 9 Commandments if they merge 1 & 2. So, they are forced to “separate” the 10th, into 9 & 10.