Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book

[RaisedCatholic]

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.

If they are separate commandments, then why does Exodus 20:17 begin with “you shall not covet your neighbor’s house” (a possession), then proceed to “your shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (a NON-possession), then go back to commanding not to covet his other possessions (male servant, female servant, ox, donkey) & finish with “nor anything that belongs to your neighbor”?

If these were two separate commandments (one being of his wife and a separate one of his possessions, why does God have the wife in the middle of his possessions at either end? Again, this isn’t implying the wife is a “possession,” but simply that she “belongs” to her husband. And anything that belongs to someone is not to be coveted - possession or non-possession.

This is why Jesus & Paul list the other commandments separately (Matthew 19:18-19; Romans 13:9), but has “you shall not covet” as a SINGLE commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself.” If you covet anything that belongs to your neighbor, including his possessions & his wife, you are not loving him.

 

[De_Maria]

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.

If they are separate commandments, then why does Exodus 20:17 begin with “you shall not covet your neighbor’s house” (a possession), then proceed to “your shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” …

Because they are two Commandments.

 

[MiserereMei]

I’m not even going to bother correcting your misquotes of Scripture. Having read a number of threads in which you post, such seems to be a habit of yours, as is repeating what you’ve said before, almost verbatim.

Continuing this conversation just isn’t worth my time.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

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.

Not quite true. Nothing is being forced.

According to the Catechism of Trent the division of the Ten Commandments used by both Catholics and Lutherans and other protestants:

(“Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth: thou shalt not adore them nor serve them”)

Some, supposing these words which come next in order to constitute a distinct precept, reduce the ninth and tenth Commandments to one. St. Augustine, on the contrary, considering the last two to be distinct Commandments, makes the words just quoted a part of the first Commandment. His division is much approved in the Church, and hence we willingly adopt it.

and

The Scriptures inform us that God Himself commanded to be made images of Cherubim, and also the brazen serpent. The interpretation, therefore, at which we must arrive, is that images are prohibited only inasmuch as they are used as deities to receive adoration, and so to injure the true worship of God.

and then regarding the ninth and tenth commandment:

…these two Commandments are dissimilar; how one covetousness differs from another a difference noticed by St. Augustine, in his book of Questions on Exodus. The one covetousness looks only to utility and interest, the other to unlawful desire and criminal pleasure. He, for instance, who covets a field or house, pursues profit rather than pleasure, while he who covets another man’s wife yields to a desire of pleasure, not of profit.

and

The promulgation of these two Commandments was necessary for two reasons. The first is to explain the sixth and seventh Commandments. Reason alone shows that to prohibit adultery is also to prohibit the desire of another man’s wife,

The second reason (for the promulgation) of these two Commandments is that they distinctly and in express terms prohibit some things of which the sixth and seventh Commandments do not contain an explicit prohibition. The seventh Commandment, for instance, forbids an unjust desire or endeavour to take what belongs to another; but this Commandment further prohibits even to covet it in any way, even though it could be acquired justly and lawfully, if we foresee that by such acquisition our neighbour would suffer some loss.

If we divide the first commandment into two and make all graven images unlawful, almost ALL Christians, even the most fundamental, would be guilty of that one at Christmas time.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I’m not even going to bother correcting your misquotes of Scripture. Having read a number of threads in which you post, such seems to be a habit of yours, as is repeating what you’ve said before, almost verbatim.

Continuing this conversation just isn’t worth my time.

I could easily say the same thing, but that would be subjective. At least I was able to defend it by utilizing Scripture we both agree on.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If they are separate commandments, then why does Exodus 20:17 begin with “you shall not covet your neighbor’s house” (a possession), then proceed to “your shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” …

With all due respect, you only partially quoted my question, which resulted in a response that took my full question out of context. Here is my question in full:

“ If they are separate commandments, then why does Exodus 20:17 begin with “you shall not covet your neighbor’s house” (a possession), then proceed to “your shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (a NON-possession), then go back to commanding not to covet his other possessions (male servant, female servant, ox, donkey) & finish with “nor anything that belongs to your neighbor”? If these were two separate commandments (one being of his wife and a separate one of his possessions, why does God have the wife in the middle of his possessions at either end?”

Responding with “because they are two Commandments” doesn’t address my question - in its entirety. Try again.

 

[po18guy]

This sounds suspiciously like the Rev. (Bishop) Henry Graham’s classic work Where We Got The Bible , subtitled “Our Debt to the Catholic Church.”

Where We Got the Bible... Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Henry Grey Graham | Goodreads

Highly recommended.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

because they are two Commandments” doesn’t address my question

I realize you are probably choosing not to respond to my posts but I think if you look at what I posted this morning you will understand why Catholics and Lutherans have the 10 Commandments divided the way they are. It dates back to St. Augustine.

The Roman Catechism, the Catechism of Trent explains it very well.

God bless

 

[Elf01]

If they are separate commandments, then why does Exodus 20:17 begin with “you shall not covet your neighbor’s house” (a possession), then proceed to “your shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (a NON-possession), then go back to commanding not to covet his other possessions (male servant, female servant, ox, donkey)

You consider servants possessions?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

You’re quibbling is not going to change that. We follow the Catholic Church.

I think non Catholic protestants many times want to debate Catholics: Scripture alone to Scripture alone, forgetting that for Catholics the debate will always be Scripture alone to Church teaching which is always Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

 

[angel12]

I think non Catholic protestants many times want to debate Catholics: Scripture alone to Scripture alone, forgetting that for Catholics the debate will always be Scripture alone to Church teaching which is always Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

Especially former Catholics who decide to come here to show us the error of our ways. And always leave disappointed.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You consider servants possessions?

In Biblical times, servants - and more specifically - slaves were considered possessions, because they were owned by their masters. Unfortunately, modern translations sometimes mistranslate the specific Hebrew and Greek words for “slaves” for “servants” instead. Even in the NT, even Christians like Philemon owned slaves, like Onesimus, which Jesus used this first century analogy to describe the relationship between He as a loving, merciful, and just Master to His obedient slaves who were believers in Him who were owned by Him.

When studying a particular passage, we have to be careful of extrapolating modern relationships with that of relationships in Biblical times. So, yes - back then - slaves were possessions of their masters, who belonged to them. And it was a violation of the commandment to “not covet” anything, and anyone, who belonged to your neighbor…possessions AND NON-possessions like your neighbor’s wife.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Especially former Catholics who decide to come here to show us the error of our ways. And always leave disappointed.

Can’t speak for “former” Catholics, but that is not my intention. Just explaining why some Protestants don’t agree, with explanations utilizing the text we all agree on. This is not sola scriptura, because if a Biblical text we agree on is explicit on something then it is not an issue we should disagree on (like the Trinity). Sola scriptura would apply more to some of the Marian dogmas, like her bodily Assumption, which are rejected by Protestants because it is not found in Scripture (sola scriptura), but rather based on later church traditions.

BTW, I prefer to classify myself as a “Reformed Catholic,” rather than an ex-Catholic.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Sola scriptura would apply more to some of the Marian dogmas, like her bodily Assumption, which are rejected by Protestants because it is not found in Scripture (sola scriptura), but rather based on later church traditions.

But then that would also be another Scriptural debate, as to whether or not Scripture supports the Marian dogmas, which Catholics believe it does.

 

[Gorgias]

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.”

Are you certain you’re citing the entire commandment? You seem to have omitted Ex 20:2-3.

This would not include family photos, or even statues of Lincoln, since they are not deities at risk of being worshiped.

That’s not the standard. You quoted it yourself: “you shall not make… any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” That does include family photos, statues of Lincoln, and even that cute puppy coffee mug you enjoy sipping tea from.

Responding with “because they are two Commandments” doesn’t address my question - in its entirety. Try again.

Sure… I’ll take up the challenge: because the Church which Jesus founded and gave authority has interpreted it to be so. QED. (You’re welcome.)

In Biblical times, servants - and more specifically - slaves were considered possessions, because they were owned by their masters.

That’s a nice try, but it doesn’t really hold up to reason. In this context, God is giving His law to His people, the Israelites. You know what he tells them about slaves? They’re to be released at each jubilee. In other words, they’re not possessions; their labor is what’s owned, and it’s only owned temporarily.

So… no: slaves are not possessions; their labor is.

So, then, you’re still stuck explaining how if (as you say) it’s a single commandment, why God goes from stuff to people to stuff. The Catholic answer would be “coveting a covenanted spouse is materially different than coveting anything else, and so it stands apart.” Want to give it another try, then?

This is not sola scriptura, because if a Biblical text we agree on is explicit on something then it is not an issue we should disagree on (like the Trinity).

So, are you asserting that if we disagree on a text of Scripture, then it’s an issue we may disagree on?

 

[De_Maria]

With all due respect, you only partially quoted my question, which resulted in a response that took my full question out of context. …Responding with “because they are two Commandments” doesn’t address my question - in its entirety. Try again.

I think it does. You’re complicating a very simple issue and basically trying to interpet the Word of God to suit your preconceived notions.

 

[De_Maria]

Can’t speak for “former” Catholics, but that is not my intention. Just explaining why some Protestants don’t agree, with explanations utilizing the text we all agree on. This is not sola scriptura, because if a Biblical text we agree on is explicit on something then it is not an issue we should disagree on (like the Trinity).

Yes, it’s Sola Scriptura. You seem to think that you have a say in interpreting Scripture. You don’t. Sola Scriptura gives you that right. Catholics submit to Catholic Teaching.

BTW, I prefer to classify myself as a “Reformed Catholic,” rather than an ex-Catholic.

It doesn’t really matter how you classify yourself, if you reject the Mass and refuse to submit to Catholic Teaching, you’re not Catholic.

 

[Thom18]

If you’re protestant, you’re in error, and it’s as simple as that. You have no ground- even as a “former Catholic”, to accuse us of anything, when it is we who have kept the Apostolic Faith. If you choose to ignore Christianity between 33 AD and whenever your particularly favorite “reformer” began teaching, then it’s to your own detriment. Just don’t pass your opinions off as undisputed fact.

 

[Elf01]

In Biblical times, servants - and more specifically - slaves were considered possessions, because they were owned by their masters. Unfortunately, modern translations sometimes mistranslate the specific Hebrew and Greek words for “slaves” for “servants” instead. Even in the NT, even Christians like Philemon owned slaves, like Onesimus, which Jesus used this first century analogy to describe the relationship between He as a loving, merciful, and just Master to His obedient slaves who were believers in Him who were owned by Him.

As were wives.

 

[De_Maria]

So, they loved their donkeys as much as they loved their wives?