P
pnewton
Guest
No, who do you think inspired the writing of the Old Testament?Old Testament, not Jesus’ teachings.
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
+1.
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,” – Matthew 5:17Old Testament, not Jesus’ teachings.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Then do you think that the Old Testament should be thrown out. Jesus said he did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.Old Testament, not Jesus’ teachings.
N
Newbie2
Guest
I won’t engage in the “pick-n-choose” or “tit-for-tat” protestant version of bible verse battles. No, I don’t think the OT should be ditched, only taken in context. If anyone thinks that Jesus taught that hate was a proper attitude for one’s enemies, I’d like to see evidence.
In any case, I stand behind the interpretation as I posted from the New Jerome Biblical commentary. If anyone has any different interpretations from biblical scholars, let’s see them. Otherwise, I think this thread has pretty much played itself out.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
The New Jerome Biblical commentary is NOT official teaching AND it could be incorrect. The fact that it raises several unanswered questions is a good INDICATION that it is incorrect on this point.
You mean the way that Jesus did when He quoted passages (verses) from the OT as recorded in Matthew 13:14-15; Mark 12:35-36; Luke 4:16-21; Luke 6:1-5; Luke 24:27 and John 7:37-38 when He was challenged?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I’m re-typing this from Patrick Madrid (a reknown Catholic Apologist who has been featured on EWTN) so please excuse any typo’s that I might make …
It is true that God, and thus Jesus, loves peace, and wants us to live in peace with one another, however Jesus himself shows us time when Peace is NOT the answer. An example of this is when Jesus whips those who are gambling in the Temple and using it as a Market Place, he even overturns the tables.
Jesus instructs Christians to carry swords to protect ourselves and more importantly to protect others. He teaches us to Love our Neighbours, and to Love our Enemy. Tell me, if our enemy is trying to kill our neighbour, how do we show our neighbour Love by allowing them to die. We do not, it is our job to step inbetween our enemy with our sword drawn and declare in the Name of Jesus that we Love him, but if he doesn’t stop, we will kill him.
Moses calls the Lord a Warrior, since Jesus is God, this means that Jesus is a Warrior, and when he returns he will deal death to countless millions of people, does this mean he doesn’t Love them? Of course not! But in order to protect those who Love him, Jesus must do away with those who would harm them.
When Peter draws his sword and cuts the High Priest’s Slave’s ear off, Jesus does not stop him and tell him to get rid of his sword, rather he tells Peter to return his sword to his sheath where it will be ready for use when it is once again needed, he demonstrates this by announcing that he can summon all the legions of angels to come and kill all those who opposed him, however he will not because it would run counter to God’s Will, and thus he warns his Disciples, that those who draw their sword in THIS situation will surely die by the sword, as they will be working COUNTER to God’s will.
The old testament, which is God’s Testament is full accounts of God empower the Jews to Kill. So much so that each Jewish warrior was the match for 5 non-Jewish warriors.
N
Newbie2
Guest
The Patrick Madrid quote is NOT official teaching AND it could be incorrect too.
I guess the reader has to decide for him or herself which interpretation to go by, just like with many other things that are not clearly spelled out in an encyclical or concilary document.
If you’re ever shooting at a bad guy, Sir Knight, please shoot straight.
:thumbsup:
I guess the reader has to decide for him or herself which interpretation to go by, just like with many other things that are not clearly spelled out in an encyclical or concilary document.
If you’re ever shooting at a bad guy, Sir Knight, please shoot straight.
:thumbsup:
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
No, it isn’t but the reply does not cause contradiction with other parts of scripture while the New Jerome Biblical commentary DOES raise several questions that can not be answered. Which is more likely to be correct?The Patrick Madrid quote is NOT official teaching AND it could be incorrect too.
Not to worry, I use laser sights.If you’re ever shooting at a bad guy, Sir Knight, please shoot straight.
M
melensdad
Guest
Newbie2, once again you are confusing the issues of Martyrdom and Self-Defense in your statement and in your understanding of the Bible.I agree with the interpretation that I posted earlier from the Jerome commentary. Yes, it’s inconsistant if you believe that Jesus commanded us to carry weapons and yet at the same time love our enemies, isn’t it.
We can love our enemies. But our enemies are the enemies of the Church and of the teachings of Christ. By loving them we setting a higher standard and allowing them to show themselves for what they truly are. But these enemies, who murdered many early church leaders and made them martyrs, did so as a form of religious persecution. That is the whole point of martyrdom. When you stand up for your faith and are murdered because you will not renounce it. Those who take your life in that fashion as your enemies. To love them is to forgive them.
On the other hand, a criminal is not our enemy in the same context. A criminal is a criminal. Just like the money changers at the temple that were physically thrown out. Do not presume that a criminal who is intent on taking your goods and your life is our “enemy” in the same context that the “enemies” of Jesus were in the Bible. A criminal who attacks you does not make you a martyr for your faith. A criminal who attacks you is not your enemy to be loved and you do nothing to impact the world by being slaughtered at his hand.
Please understand that these are different concepts. Once you wrap your mind around that fact then all of this will make much more sense to you.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Oh, yes, I understand the difference. That’s why in an earlier post, I suggested that perhaps Martydom was best left out and passivism was what I was asking about.
But while I agree for the most part what you wrote, I’m not convince that Jesus didn’t mean “love all your enemies, not just the ones that hate you for your religious beliefs”.
I think you’ll have a difficult time supporting that Jesus is OK with hating any enemy, but I’d be interested to see evidence of such.
But while I agree for the most part what you wrote, I’m not convince that Jesus didn’t mean “love all your enemies, not just the ones that hate you for your religious beliefs”.
I think you’ll have a difficult time supporting that Jesus is OK with hating any enemy, but I’d be interested to see evidence of such.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Depends on the defination of hate is.
*1.to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: *to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry. *2.to be unwilling; dislike: *I hate to do it. ***
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Loving your enemy doesn’t mean that you let them walk all over you. St. Thomas Aquinas put it best: “Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even ’til the aggressor’s death. This act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim. One is also allowed to kill other people’s unjust aggressor.” (Dizionario ecclesiastico)
If it is a “good act”, then it can not be wrong or sinful. Conversely, if this act is “good”, then the opposite of such actions would be “bad” and thus, sinful.
M
melensdad
Guest
Newbie2, not to argue with you, but as long as you make statements like this last one in response to posts like mine, then I have to respectfully suggest that you do not understand what I wrote.
I never suggested anything about HATE but you bring it up directly or implied. There is no such implication or directive in my post.
To defend the life of an innocent (myself or even a stranger) does not require me to hate anyone. In fact it requires me to love the innocent as I love myself because I am, by default, putting myself in harms way to come to that defense. I don’t have to hate the attacker, I simply have to repel the attacker to defend the innocent life. That may, or may not include killing the attacker. As I am too old, too feeble and too wracked with arthritis to physically fight to repel the attacker of the innocent, I have no choice but to use a gun as my ultimate back up. Should the worst case happen, I will fire the gun and potentially kill the attacker. That does not require hate.
Your implications are faulty. Your inferences are faulty. Your logic is faulty.
N
Newbie2
Guest
And you seem not to understand what I’m saying. I agree with your statement (that I bolded).
Follow me here…you wrote: “But our enemies are the enemies of the Church and of the teachings of Christ”. I agree. And Martyrdom would be dying at their hands for the cause of the faith, as you wrote. I agree.
However, are not the ones that hate us (not we give that hate back in turn) for reasons other than our religious beliefs (and I think we can assign some degree of hate to Joe Bad Guy who wants to shoot us dead for no other reason that we happen to be in the neighborhood at the wrong time…at least they certainly don’t love us…) also our enemies?
I think we’re dancing around who we’re defining as our enemies.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Sure, I agree with that. But I don’t understand how that ties in or conflicts with what I wrote earlier: "But while I agree for the most part what you wrote, I’m not convince**d **that Jesus didn’t mean “love all your enemies, not just the ones that hate you for your religious beliefs”. (Typo in convinced. My bad.)
Perhaps our next question is, those who would do us bad (outside of those who hate us for our religious beliefs, which we all seem to agrtee do hate us), do they really hate us to one degree or another?
M
melensdad
Guest
You are mistakenly making the wild assumption that criminals hate their victims. That is faulty logic. It is just as faulty as saying that we hate our attackers. We have so little to go on that we are simply reacting, often with the survival instinct but rarely do we have enough time to form opinions. We certainly do not know or understand his motives and cannot make assumptions like you make above (or other similar assumptions).
N
Newbie2
Guest
You are mistakenly making the wild assumption that criminals hate their victims.
See my previous post on love/hate. I see love and hate as opposites with degrees of love and hate that one can experience. They certainly don’t love them, no?
That is faulty logic.
Perhaps a faulty conclusion, but I think my logic is pretty good.
It is just as faulty as saying that we hate our attackers. We have so little to go on that we are simply reacting, often with the survival instinct but rarely do we have enough time to form opinions. We certainly do not know or understand his motives and cannot make assumptions like you make above (or other similar assumptions).
Are you asserting that there’s a middle ground between love and hate, i.e. there is a degree of indifference? Is it reasonable to assume that bad guys do not love their victims?
M
melensdad
Guest
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
It has been said that hate is not the opposite of love and that instead, indifference is the opposite of love. If we look at criminal activity, that conclusion could very well be true.
- Status