Problematic Bible verses for Catholic Apologists?

[DavidFilmer]

This question is directed to Catholics who engage in aplogetics:

Are there any Bible passages that you encounter and think “Oh no, not that one.”

I cannot think of any. (name removed by moderator)ut, anyone?

 

[bmullins]

There are a couple that I think “really? Again?” Not because they are problematic but because often in the very same thread it has been mentioned already, refuted, and expounded upon. Yet, it seems that it becomes a circle of the same argument over and over.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There are a couple that I think “really? Again?”

I also do not consider those passages as “problematic.” They are maybe an nuisance (usually put forth by inexperienced protestants to add static to the signal), but are not really a problem (and thus not are problematic).

I’m talking here about “nuisance” passages such as “Call no man father.” That comes up a lot, but it is trivial to deal with. This passage is cited by inexperienced protestant apologists, and it is an indication to a Catholic apologist that he is dealing with an amateur. Catholics must restrain themselves from smelling “blood in the water” and attacking like a shark (which is uncharitable, even if the protestant has offered chum as his offense).

What I am asking about are passages that Catholics really wish were not in Scripture in the first place. For protestants, such passages are surely like John 6, and Matthew 16:18, and John 20:23, and James 2. I’m asking about Catholic versions of these passages - passages that Catholics wish were not even there - and that we feel we must engage in Scriptural yoga or other elaborate evasive tactics to explain how the plain wording of the passage is not actually correct.

 

[KenChute]

Catholics have a wonderful explanation in tradition. For those who wish to say Catholics are not biblically sound, inform them of tradition and you will be in excellent shape.

 

[JRKH]

Apologetics are not my “specialty” so there might be verses out there that would catch me off guard, but on the whole I have to agree with the others that I don’t find any to be problematic.

What is “problematic”, is not the verses so much as the “understandings” of those verses and the theological foundations and terminology often used to justify a given position.

So - For me I might say “Oh no, not that one” in regards to things like “imputation v Infusion” or “Faith and Works” or purgatory, or soul sleep etc…But this is mainly because of how Catholics and Protestants define certain things differently…

Peace
James

 

[Calvin_Hobbs]

How about the ancestor listing of our Lord, it differs from one Gospel to the other. If inspired by the Holy Spirit how can it be different?

Stop Jihad
Bruce

 

[Khalid]

Those are the supposed or so-called contradictions in the Bible, and are of equal problem to all Christians, such as the apparently different dating of the Crucifixion in the Synoptics and John, etc.

In the case of the genealogies, the answer is obvious, as neither are “standard” Jewish genealogies (as Matt includes women): one (I believe Matthew) records the ancestors of Joseph, Jesus’ legal father, and Luke records the ancestors of Mary, Jesus’ biological mother, showing that he has Davidic claim and lineage through both parents.

 

[ivecomeback]

This question is directed to Catholics who engage in aplogetics:

Are there any Bible passages that you encounter and think “Oh no, not that one.”

I cannot think of any. (name removed by moderator)ut, anyone?

Beware of Sola Scriptura. Beware of proof texting. That said:

First: Another poster mentioned being versed in Catholicism’s rich understanding of tradition.
Second: Be assured that EVERY Catholic doctrine can be defended by Scripture.
Third: Maybe the better question is to be aware of the ones that are problematic for you and then come to conviction on them. For me, the last one was that Mary was not ever virgin but rather that Jesus had brothers & sisters. Another one was Original Sin.

 

[Little_Mary]

There is nothing in scripture that is problematic for a Catholic.

The problem lies in personal interpretation.

Personal interpration is not my problem as a Catholic, it is that of the interpreter’s:thumbsup:

 

[Jesus_123]

I also do not consider those passages as “problematic.” They are maybe an nuisance (usually put forth by inexperienced protestants to add static to the signal), but are not really a problem (and thus not are problematic).

I’m talking here about “nuisance” passages such as “Call no man father.” That comes up a lot, but it is trivial to deal with. This passage is cited by inexperienced protestant apologists, and it is an indication to a Catholic apologist that he is dealing with an amateur. Catholics must restrain themselves from smelling “blood in the water” and attacking like a shark (which is uncharitable, even if the protestant has offered chum as his offense).

What I am asking about are passages that Catholics really wish were not in Scripture in the first place. For protestants, such passages are surely like John 6, and Matthew 16:18, and John 20:23, and James 2. I’m asking about Catholic versions of these passages - passages that Catholics wish were not even there - and that we feel we must engage in Scriptural yoga or other elaborate evasive tactics to explain how the plain wording of the passage is not actually correct.

+In all charity and peace David . . .

Your approach to Sacred :bible1: Scripture as to consider it . . . “problematic” . . . portions a . . . “nuisance” . . . and . . . “passages that Catholics wish were not even there” . . . "plain wording of the passage is not actually correct" . . . are highly questionable . . . and the suggestion that we as Catholics should even consider engaging in . . . “elaborate evasive tactics” . . . or . . . “Scriptural yoga” . . . (whatever on earth that may be) . . . all reveal that you truly have no real concept or understanding of the Catholic understanding and approach to the . . . Thoughts of God . . . as contained within all of **Sacred Scripture **. . . God’s Holy :bible1: Word . . . *non-Catholic approaches to Scripture are really the least of your problems David *. . . you need to read and study in depth all the passages in our wonderful Catholic Church’s . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . regarding God’s Holy Word . . .

****. . . :coffeeread: . . . **** CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

81
Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."

**
In the sacred books,
the Father who**

is in heaven
comes lovingly to meet **his **children,
and talks with them.

:bible1: “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b​

:bible1: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8​

:bible1: “So shall **my word **be that goeth forth out of **my **mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which **I **please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto **I **sent it.” Isaiah 55:11​

:bible1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1​

"And the
Word
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth."
John 1:14

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[MarcoPolo]

None are ultimately problematic, but some take longer to explain than others, which can be tedious when you are speaking to someone who has difficulty escaping the narrow bounds of their own interpretation. The incident with Jacob and Esau as explained by Paul takes some time to unfold and requires knowledge of the Old Testament characters. Romans 9 is in total harmony with Catholic teaching, but can take some time to explain and the immediate context really goes from chapter 8-11 or so. That makes it tough to get the other person to grasp what is being said, to get them to escape their focus on a just tiny portion of the tapestry. On the other hand, maybe I’m just terrible at trying to explain it.

 

[bmullins]

How about the ancestor listing of our Lord, it differs from one Gospel to the other. If inspired by the Holy Spirit how can it be different?

Stop Jihad
Bruce

I have two ancestor listing two. I can give you my mom or my dads… and in both of those I can go up one side or through the other… through my grandfather or my grandmother.

One is to show you one side, the other the other. One is from a Jewish perspective, and the other to Gentiles… They are also inspired through two different minds… with different thoughts and objectives.

 

[TarlsQtr]

Again, I believe that all Catholic teachings are scriptually sound, so I am not sure if any give me any real heartburn.

The ones that seem the most tedious to me are those that are not obvious in scripture (e.g. purgatory). This is because the problem is their false premise of sola scriptura. Although purgatory is there, it is not written plain as day. You will never flip a protestant into believing in purgatory unless you get them to flip on sola scriptura first. It becomes a very long road because you essentially have to convince them of two things and they are so invested in sola scriptura that it becomes very tedious.

 

[Trebor135]

This question is directed to Catholics who engage in aplogetics:

Are there any Bible passages that you encounter and think “Oh no, not that one.”

I cannot think of any. (name removed by moderator)ut, anyone?

Here are my contributions. First come the difficult passage(s), next the objection(s), and lastly (if available) one or more links addressing the issue. It is hoped that other posters will be able to contribute more links where possible.

Part 1

From the Old Testament

1. Exodus 20:4-6

[4] “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
[5] you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
[6] but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Objection: The doctrines surrounding images/statues and the Mass in Catholic and Orthodox worship constitute idolatry.

Response: Do Catholics Worship Statues?

Exposition on the Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry

On the Nature of Idolatry and Whether it Resides Primarily in the Heart

Biblical Evidence for Praying to and Worshiping God While Bowing or Kneeling Before a Statue of a Creature Made by Human Hands

Dishonest, Illogical Sleight-of-Hand in the Accusation of Alleged Catholic Idolatrous Worship at Mass

Does Jewish worship constitute idolatry?

1. Exodus 21:1-7,15,17,20-21

[1] "Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them.
[2] When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.
[3] If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.
[4] If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone.
[5] But if the slave plainly says, `I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’
[6] then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
[7] “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do…”

[15] “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.”

[17] “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.”

[20] “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.
[21] But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”

Objection: God lays down very harsh rules–for no apparent reason–to be followed by the Israelites, this kind of legislation starkly contrasting with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.

Response:

1. Exodus 21:22-23

[22] “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
[23] If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life…”

Objection: God does not seem to regard the value of an unborn child as highly as that of an already-born woman.

Response:

1. Joshua 6:20-25

[20] So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people raised a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
[21] Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword.
[22] And Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, “Go into the harlot’s house, and bring out from it the woman, and all who belong to her, as you swore to her.”
[23] So the young men who had been spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father and mother and brothers and all who belonged to her; and they brought all her kindred, and set them outside the camp of Israel.
[24] And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
[25] But Rahab the harlot, and her father’s household, and all who belonged to her, Joshua saved alive; and she dwelt in Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Objection: The Israelites conquer a city with such extreme and unnecessary violence under the command of a divinely appointed leader. A loving God would not order or permit such conduct.

Response: Hard Sayings Of The Old Testament

Continued in next post.

 

[Ignatius]

This question is directed to Catholics who engage in aplogetics:

Are there any Bible passages that you encounter and think “Oh no, not that one.”

I cannot think of any. (name removed by moderator)ut, anyone?

All Scripture is an affirmation of The Catholic Faith. biblechristiansociety.com/home.php has been a great help.

 

[Trebor135]

Part 2

1. 2 Kings 2:23-24

[23] He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”
[24] And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

Objection: God responds to the mocking of his prophet on the part of mere children by sending bears to kill them in a horrifying and cruel manner.

Response: 2 Kings 2:23-25 Explanation

2 Kings 2:23,24

How does one explain 2 Kings 2:23-24?

Elisha and the Bears

From the New Testament

1. Matthew 1:24-25

[24] When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife,
[25] but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Objection: Catholics and Orthodox believe that Mary remained a virgin during and after the birth of Jesus, but the use of the word “until” directly contradicts this doctrine.

Response: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The “Until” Argument against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - Brothers and Sister of Christ

7a) Matthew 24:29-35

[29] "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken;
[30] then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory;
[31] and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
[32] “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
[33] So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
[34] Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.
[35] Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

7b) Luke 9:23-27

[23] And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
[24] For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.
[25] For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?
[26] For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
[27] But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Objection: If Jesus is referring to the end of the world–and given that this clearly has not occurred two thousand years later–he made a prediction that did not come true.

Response: Failed Prophecy?

1. Mark 13:32

[32] “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

Objection: It is impossible that there can be any subject on which the Jesus of orthodox Christianity, an individual both divine and human, lacked knowledge in any way.

Response:

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

Part 3

From the New Testament

1. Luke 2:22-24

[22] And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
[23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”)
[24] and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Objection: If, as the Catholic doctrine holds, Mary was conceived immaculately, it would make no sense for the mother of Jesus to make a sin offering.

Response:

1. Luke 11:27-28

[27] As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!”
[28] But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Objection: Far from encouraging veneration of his mother, Jesus is doing all he can to point his audience in the opposite direction.

Response: Did Jesus Renounce Marian Veneration? (Luke 11:27-28)

1. Ephesians 1:3-14

[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
[4] even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
[5] He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
[6] to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
[7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
[8] which he lavished upon us.
[9] For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ
[10] as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
[11] In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will,
[12] we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory.
[13] In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
[14] which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Objection: Paul, by the forceful character of his language, appears to be teaching that a believer can never lose his salvation.

Response: An Examination of Eternal Security

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

Part 4

From the New Testament

12a) Hebrews 4:11-16

[11] Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.
[12] For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
[13] And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
[14] Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
[15] For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
[16] Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

12b) Hebrews 8:1-6

[1] Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
[2] a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord.
[3] For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.
[4] Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.
[5] They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary; for when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.”
[6] But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

Objection: The author seems to be proclaiming the final end to the special class of priests of Judaism in light of the sacrifice of Christ.

Response: Holy Orders and the Sacrificial Priesthood

The Priesthood Debate

Is Ministerial Priesthood Scriptural?

13a) 1 Timothy 3:1-5

[1] The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
[2] Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
[3] no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
[4] He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way;
[5] for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?

13b) 1 Timothy 4:1-5

[1] Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
[2] through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,
[3] who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
[4] For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving;
[5] for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Objection: Paul gives instructions where he not just assumes that bishops will generally be married but also expresses his strong support for this state of affairs. Paul also condemns the notion that Christians will be commanded not to eat certain things. Yet, bishops of the Latin and all other rites are required to remain single in accordance with the discipline of clerical celibacy, and Catholics may not partake in meat on certain holy days.

Response: A Biblical Defense of Clerical Celibacy

1 Timothy 4:1-3 In Context

The end.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

well, I’m no pro but I’m more geared towards protestant apologetics, not theistic arguments in general.