Is it :thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder?

[maria_rose]

Here is the Council of Trent on the Catholic interpretation of the 5th Commandment

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm05.htm

Thanks brendan for posting that. it was a great help!

 

[Cari]

Yeeeeeeaaaah…it wouldn’t be the first time there was a weird translation in the NAB-CE (just check out the wording of the angelic greeting in Luke)

Cheers,
Cari

 

[EDUCE_1]

It is “thou shalt not murder”. There are many definitions of kill, nine to be exact. For murder there are two; one is that pertains strictly to the teaching of CHRIST.

Murder: The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Murder: something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy

 

[Zahmir]

I’m rather appalled reading the posts from obviously very faithful Catholics. Why must we have to justify capital punishment? Capital punishment is an intrinsic evil that is only permissible in extreme and unforeseen circumstances, and in this day and age when prisoners can be kept under tight enough watch to make escape either impossible or very difficult, there is, suffice to say, no good reason to use capital punishment today.

The only case recently in which it could have been debatable is in the case of Saddam Hussein, but that is only debatable. I am not smart enough to work through the issue myself.

The issue in this thread seems to be concerned with the wording in the Old Testament. And while the wording might be “Do not murder,” we know from the teachings of Jesus Christ and from His message to love that we are called to live above a simple prohibition. We, as Christians, have the special privilege of being able to see the human person as God created them, in the image and likeness of God. We are not clouded by darkness of sin, but Christ has become our light.

Christ practiced mercy, compassion, humility. Why should we do any less?

I can quote the Catechism too, but I’m sure you all know that well.

 

[Valke2]

“But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.”

I like what your post had to say, but there are examples in the NT where Jesus is not so forgiving.

 

[jrabs]

According to Fr Corapi’s teaching of the 10 Commandments on EWTN ( his teaching of the Catechism series)- recently broad-casted, his interpretation of this also includes slaying people with our tongues and what we say to them and about them.

That our tongues can be used to kill reputations, esteem of others, etc. though gossip, verbal abuse, slander, angry and foul words cast upon another.

 

[Zahmir]

“But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.”

I like what your post had to say, but there are examples in the NT where Jesus is not so forgiving.

Jesus was not a pushover and sometimes He made absolutely sure that people got the message, but never did He kill anyone, nor would He.

On the basis of the OT alone, I’m sure some would justify killing in some way, but we must look at the OT in the light of the New, in the light of Christ. “Thou shalt not murder” then become more than a prohibition, it becomes a mindset: for what reasons must we not kill?

We are able to answer this on the basis of what we find in Scripture, in the New and Old Testaments. Many will answer better than I, but we are created in the image and likeness of God. We are “good.” We are divinized by Christ’s taking up of human flesh, and we are called to share fully in His Divinity at the end of time. What gives anyone the right to kill someone, to take away valuable time for growth, restoration, and rebirth in Christ?

 

[lak611]

From the Haydock Commentary: “Ver. 13. Kill. These precepts are to be taken in their full extent, as prohibiting not only the ultimate act, but every thing which leads to it. Magistrates are authorized to inflict capital punishment. We are allowed also to defend ourselves against an unjust aggressor. But we must never intend to kill him. (Calmet) — The laws will not condemn us, perhaps, if we do; but God sees the heart, and judges. A night thief may be slain, because we know not how far our own lives may be endangered, chap. xxii. 2. (Haydock)”

 

[Zahmir]

From the Haydock Commentary: “Ver. 13. Kill. These precepts are to be taken in their full extent, as prohibiting not only the ultimate act, but every thing which leads to it. Magistrates are authorized to inflict capital punishment. We are allowed also to defend ourselves against an unjust aggressor. But we must never intend to kill him. (Calmet) — The laws will not condemn us, perhaps, if we do; but God sees the heart, and judges. A night thief may be slain, because we know not how far our own lives may be endangered, chap. xxii. 2. (Haydock)”

Read my first post.

Criminals under arrest and in jail serve a very minimal threat to society. And yes, we are allowed to practice self-defense in the case of an intruder if it would seem there is a immediate threat on our lives.

 

[Valke2]

Jesus was not a pushover and sometimes He made absolutely sure that people got the message, but never did He kill anyone, nor would He.

But quotes like the one I have posted have been used to justifies killing again and again and again. To say that Jesus just wanted to make sure we got the message when he told his followers to “slay them,” doesn’t trouble you?

Judaism is very clear that killing is permissible and sometimes mandated under certain conditions. If someone is trying to kill you, you have an obligation to kill him or her in order to prevent it.

 

[Zahmir]

But quotes like the one I have posted have been used to justifies killing again and again and again. To say that Jesus just wanted to make sure we got the message when he told his followers to “slay them,” doesn’t trouble you?

Judaism is very clear that killing is permissible and sometimes mandated under certain conditions. If someone is trying to kill you, you have an obligation to kill him or her in order to prevent it.

To be honest, I was unfamiliar with the verse at first, so I found it in the Gospel of Luke.

IT IS WITHIN A PARABLE. Jesus is not speaking for Himself but in the context of a story. The words are the nobleman who has returned as king. Sound like a foreshadowing of the second coming of Christ.

“Those enemies of mine who did not want me as their bring, bring them here and slay them before me.” Christ is not talking about a physical death, but a spiritual death. For those who do not accept Christ, they will not be part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

It’s dangerous to take things out of context like that.

 

[Valke2]

To be honest, I was unfamiliar with the verse at first, so I found it in the Gospel of Luke.

IT IS WITHIN A PARABLE. Jesus is not speaking for Himself but in the context of a story. The words are the nobleman who has returned as king. Sound like a foreshadowing of the second coming of Christ.

“Those enemies of mine who did not want me as their bring, bring them here and slay them before me.” Christ is not talking about a physical death, but a spiritual death. For those who do not accept Christ, they will not be part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

It’s dangerous to take things out of context like that.

well, that’s my point. Jesus told a story that equated not following him with being slain. YOu don’t have to tell me that it is dangerous to take things out of context.

Even in parable form, how does this square with the doctrine of forgivness? Parable or not, it is saying choose me or choose death.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The fifth commandment says translated in the NAB as “you shall not kill.”
I’ve read in Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s " the ten commandments"
That in the torah it is called :“thou shalt not murder!”
That makes for an interesting question:
According to Church teaching Is all killing breaking the fith commandment or only deliberate murder?
Your thoughts and comments please!

The Torah - like the rest of the Tanakh - contains many commands to kill: stoning to death is a punishment for many offences. So the OT God is no opponent of the DP - on the contrary, He supports it fervently. And this quite apart from the supposedly divine commands to engage in holy war & slaughter tribes such as the Amalekites - Saul was rejected for failing to do precisely that; he did not exterminate them, so Samuel rejected him (1 Samuel 15); how that differs from seeking to exteminate the Jews, as Hitler did, who knows ? I don’t.​

The Church used to have no ethical problems at all in burning heretics, or in supporting holy wars. It has even condemned pacificism. It’s a strong supporter of the DP, or was. It was Leo X who condemned the proposition that “It is against the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics” - this was not an opinion, but a statement of Catholic doctrine, which technically is probably infallible. A few years earlier, in 1517, the same Pope had some of his critics executed on a charge of conspiracy by being dismembered alive: there is a description of their execution in volume three of Father Philip Hughes’ “History of the Church”. ##

 

[Zahmir]

well, that’s my point. Jesus told a story that equated not following him with being slain. YOu don’t have to tell me that it is dangerous to take things out of context.

Even in parable form, how does this square with the doctrine of forgivness? Parable or not, it is saying choose me or choose death.

In terms of eternal salvation, we must choose Christ else we WILL die. And that is a separate topic altogether, but it is supported by many passages in Scripture.

I cannot say whether a particular person is going to hell, I really don’t know. But if a person denies God, denies Jesus Christ, and expects the mercy of God to save Him… No… I don’t believe that man will be saved.

Christ came and died on the cross to take away the sins of all, but we are not automatically made worthy of heaven. We have to work for it. We still have the choice to live as we’re supposed and live forever or to live how we selfishly want to live and die.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From the Haydock Commentary: “Ver. 13. Kill. These precepts are to be taken in their full extent, as prohibiting not only the ultimate act, but every thing which leads to it. Magistrates are authorized to inflict capital punishment. We are allowed also to defend ourselves against an unjust aggressor. But we must never intend to kill him. (Calmet) — The laws will not condemn us, perhaps, if we do; but God sees the heart, and judges. A night thief may be slain, because we know not how far our own lives may be endangered, chap. xxii. 2. (Haydock)”

IOW, what Jesus actually says, comes a poor second to what some of the commentators want him to have said. This is despicable.​

He did not say what Calmet wants him to have said, or what Haydock wants him to have said. But a mere detail like that can’t be allowed to get in the way of what is convenient, so He ends up - what a surprise ! - by agreeing perfectly with canon law, or English law, or something else equallu dubious & anachronistic.

If what Jesus said is “industriously perverted” by the commentators, there is not a hope in hades that the meaning of his teaching will be understood. It was a criminal offence at one time to falsify Papal Bulls - why are the infinitely more important words of Christ not treated with at least as much respect as mere Papal Bulls ?