Quick! (Take 2)

[fbl9]

I have worked through a number of arguments regarding Ananias and Sapphira. My first reaction to the scripture (as I mentioned earlier) was based on the possibility of coincidence: the passage in Acts 4:32 does not say that God (or Peter) killed Ananias, or his wife, Sapphira. It simply reports they were caught in a lie and dropped dead. If it were indeed possible to die of embarrassment, I don’t know how any of us lived past the age of 20. I should have died many times over since turning 13 - thanks to parents and siblings.

It is noted by theologian, James Dunn, that the story is ‘one of the most unnerving episodes in the whole of the New Testament,’ and the fourth century archbishop John Chrysostom had hinted, but then dismissed Peter as responsible for their deaths.

The bigger question is, “How much of the bible do I believe to be the literal truth?” There are some (and you know who you are) that say to not believe everything that is in the bible is to doubt the word of God. People who have studied the bible are usually quick to point out the many discrepancies and contradictions in the bible, and then there are the subtle changes to the tone of the message during translation from one language to another, which doesn’t happen once, but several times before I pick up my copy of the augmented 3rd edition of The New Oxford Annotated Bible - New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, an ecumenical study bible, complete with maps and historical references (it’s a big book).

It is not the word of God that I doubt, but of man. Many believe the books of the bible are divinely inspired, and that may very well be - but they were written by human beings. As far as I know - the only thing the Bible says that God wrote was the 10 commandments given to Moses. I base my faith on God with what I believe to be consistent with the nature of Love. I don’t believe in the ‘perfect love = perfect wrath’ idea. Maybe I’m wrong - in fact, I would say that of all the people I doubt, the first would be myself. I embrace the teachings of Chist because he spoke a difficult truth without thought to personal gain - and in fact, at great personal cost. He said God is Love. That is what I believe. Everything that pits one group against another, that seeks to divide and destroy - I look closely at the source, weigh the motives and the results of what they said before deciding if it is divinely inspired.

Peace to all.

Acts 5:9-10 “…and the feet of those that buried your husband are at the door. With that she fell down dead…”
Are then suggesting St.Peter’s foreknowldge of Sapphira’s death was merely written in.

Why would betrayal hurt more by one you love than by one you merely know?
It is because you love that person.
bolded section.
The words recorded in the Gospel’s which are atributed to Christ,are they God’s word or just words that man wrote down?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Acts 5:9-10 “…and the feet of those that buried your husband are at the door. With that she fell down dead…”
Are then suggesting St.Peter’s foreknowldge of Sapphira’s death was merely written in.

Why would betrayal hurt more by one you love than by one you merely know?
It is because you love that person.
bolded section.
The words recorded in the Gospel’s are they God’s word or just words that man wrote down?

Peter was telling Sapphira that her husband was dead - the people who buried him are at the door.

 

[fbl9]

Peter was telling Sapphira that her husband was dead - the people who buried him are at the door.

but i left out the kicker of these verses, …“and they will carry thee out. With that she fell…”

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

but i left out the kicker of these verses, …“and they will carry thee out. With that she fell…”

That’s what Dunn and Chrysostom said was so disturbing. Chrysostom said Peter did not cause or predict her demise - he said the scripture simply states Sapphira would be removed from his presence by the same people that took her husband away, it doesn’t say those people would bury her - although they did, right next to her husband.

If lying about money were a sin that cost one’s life, there would be a LOT of sudden deaths. Some televangelists have been known to bring this part of scripture up to remind people of their pledges. One would think if anyone deserved to be punished this way, it would have been Oral Roberts - in 1987 he told people that if he didn’t raise $8 million by March, God would ‘call him home’.

 

[fbl9]

That’s what Dunn and Chrysostom said was so disturbing. Chrysostom said Peter did not cause or predict her demise - he said the scripture simply states Sapphira would be removed from his presence by the same people that took her husband away, it doesn’t say those people would bury her - although they did, right next to her husband.

If lying about money were a sin that cost one’s life, there would be a LOT of sudden deaths. Some televangelists have been known to bring this part of scripture up to remind people of their pledges. One would think if anyone deserved to be punished this way, it would have been Oral Roberts - in 1987 he told people that if he didn’t raise $8 million by March, God would ‘call him home’.

i did a quick search but need to look more.All i found was non catholic christians saying that yes God did kill these twne,P.Prince? stated that these two were actually non beleivers just trying to look good, that’s why God killed them.

Yes that is a good question. One that could be applied through out history as well.
like i said i’ll have look a bit more to get what if exactly the Church says here.

 

[fbl9]

The words recorded in the Gospel’s which are atributed to Christ,are they God’s word or just words that man wrote down?

Could you touch on this please?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Could you touch on this please?

Sure, but first, John Chrysostom was an Archbishop of the Catholic faith - although it was a really long time ago (4th century)

The quatations attributed to Christ - I do believe that to be the word of God - however, that is tempered with the fact that those words were recorded by fallible human beings in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic before being translated to Latin, and then English. The fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s gospels tend to line up - support each other gives added weight (although there is some debate that one of the gospels - I think Luke? that is thought to predate the other three and was used as a reference to write the other three - but that is conjecture). If Jesus wrote his thoughts in English - that would be given that much more weight, but alas - such a record has yet to be found. So faith does come into play. The thing that really grabs my attention about what Christ said, was that his message was so radically different than Jewish theology - which was frowned upon by temple leaders, and proven to be dangerous. John the Baptist’s message was also very different - and a lot of people thought he was crazy. John had his own following in his time - people thought he was the Messiah, but he told them he was only there to pave the way for the son of God, whom he recognized publicly as Jesus when he baptized him. I find the study of history (biblical or not) fascinating, but it is important to use critical thinking skills. There are always (at the very least) two sides to a story.

Some people have said to question anything in the bible is heresy, and ask how I can consider myself a Christian while questioning scripture. I’m a Christian because I follow the teachings of Christ. My faith in God has always been strong - I have been witness to God’s grace numerous times. Human beings - not so much.

 

[fbl9]

Sure, but first, John Chrysostom was an Archbishop of the Catholic faith - although it was a really long time ago (4th century)

The quatations attributed to Christ - I do believe that to be the word of God - however, that is tempered with the fact that those words were recorded by fallible human beings in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic before being translated to Latin, and then English. The fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s gospels tend to line up - support each other gives added weight (although there is some debate that one of the gospels - I think Luke? that is thought to predate the other three and was used as a reference to write the other three - but that is conjecture). If Jesus wrote his thoughts in English - that would be given that much more weight, but alas - such a record has yet to be found. So faith does come into play. The thing that really grabs my attention about what Christ said, was that his message was so radically different than Jewish theology - which was frowned upon by temple leaders, and proven to be dangerous. John the Baptist’s message was also very different - and a lot of people thought he was crazy. John had his own following in his time - people thought he was the Messiah, but he told them he was only there to pave the way for the son of God, whom he recognized publicly as Jesus when he baptized him. I find the study of history (biblical or not) fascinating, but it is important to use critical thinking skills. There are always (at the very least) two sides to a story.

Some people have said to question anything in the bible is heresy, and ask how I can consider myself a Christian while questioning scripture. ** I’m a Christian because I follow the teachings of Christ.** My faith in God has always been strong - I have been witness to God’s grace numerous times. Human beings - not so much.

I knew that much of him,thanks though I still haven’t found anything definitive on this matter.

thank you for your reply.
bolded section, i would have guessed that would be your answer.

The Gospel according to St.Luke 5;4-23 in the first of these verses Jesus speaks of who to be afraid of, and it isn’t man.

 

[fbl9]

Jesus said in the Gospel written by St.Matthew11:20-24…“For if the miricles had been worked in Sodom that have been worked in thee, it would have remained to this day…” Surely God would not tell us a mythical place would still exist if it didn’t really exist.

In the Gospel according to St.Luke Jesus makes references to places that existed before the flood.

 

[fbl9]

In the Gospel according to St.Luke Jesus makes references to places that existed before the flood.

Offdoo you are a challenge.
We agree that God is love,
We disagree on the nature of that love.

A part of the reason we disagree is that you feel that all scripture is/could be in error.
Save for which you have built your knowledge of God’s love on.

We do agree on the ten commandments. And Christ’s two commandments.
Do we agree (i am using the Catholic listing of the ten commandments because i am Catholic) that the first three are how we are to love God, and the other seven are how we to love our nieghbour. And Christ’s two are the ten in two. Jesus through His teaching and sacrifice takes it to the next level. First our love for God is more of a union. And our love for our neighbour is reflected in this union through not just doing no evil< commandments>but being charitiable in goods and heart.?

This union is consumated in reception of the Holy Eucharist. I had to add this because i am Catholic.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

A part of the reason we disagree is that you feel that all scripture is/could be in error.
Save for which you have built your knowledge of God’s love on.

There are two major types of knowledge as I see it. When you say knowledge of God’s love, are you talking about the knowledge of the kingdom? Because that type of knowledge cannot be commuted directly with rhetoric, without some “aha” insight injected by the Holy Spirit. If you’re talking about the knowledge of theology, remember knowledge puffs up with pride. And if a man thinks he knows something, then he doesn’t know as he ought to know.

But if you’re talking about knowledge of the kingdom, then I figure we’re talking about a silent love, and experience that goes deeper than human words can accurately describe.

First our love for God is more of a union. And our love for our neighbour is reflected in this union through not just doing no evil< commandments>but being charitiable in goods and heart.?

Before Jesus, mankind had never actually witnessed Pure Love. So I think the 10 commandments are but an approximation of what love would look like if broken down into the human language at the time of Moses. You cannot achieve true love simply by living by the 10 commandments, because the rich man that turned away from Jesus did those things. But if you have true love, then the commandments are built in to your MOS (Mind Operating System) and are self-enforcing.

So it isn’t that once a person is born of the spirit, and enters the kingdom, all of a sudden they get to do whatever because the Rules Don’t Apply. It’s just that now the heart has been strengthened and purified to the point that the heart no longer seeks those things that are sins. So the focus, as you pointed out, goes from avoiding sin to a true experience of Divine Unity.

This union is consumated in reception of the Holy Eucharist. I had to add this because i am Catholic.

Well, of course!

Thank you for some really great ideas! :tiphat:

Alan

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I like you guys SO MUCH! :blushing:

 

[fbl9]

There are two major types of knowledge as I see it. When you say knowledge of God’s love, are you talking about the knowledge of the kingdom? Because that type of knowledge cannot be commuted directly with rhetoric, without some “aha” insight injected by the Holy Spirit. If you’re talking about the knowledge of theology, remember knowledge puffs up with pride. And if a man thinks he knows something, then he doesn’t know as he ought to know.

But if you’re talking about knowledge of the kingdom, then I figure we’re talking about a silent love, and experience that goes deeper than human words can accurately describe.

Before Jesus, mankind had never actually witnessed Pure Love. So I think the 10 commandments are but an approximation of what love would look like if broken down into the human language at the time of Moses. You cannot achieve true love simply by living by the 10 commandments, because the rich man that turned away from Jesus did those things. But if you have true love, then the commandments are built in to your MOS (Mind Operating System) and are self-enforcing.

So it isn’t that once a person is born of the spirit, and enters the kingdom, all of a sudden they get to do whatever because the Rules Don’t Apply. It’s just that now the heart has been strengthened and purified to the point that the heart no longer seeks those things that are sins. So the focus, as you pointed out, goes from avoiding sin to a true experience of Divine Unity.

Well, of course!

Thank you for some really great ideas! :tiphat:

Alan

Can a book boast of it’s words? of course not.As of myself i am but a text book from which is read the knowledge of the Church.

Offdoo as well…

1. What of one who doesn’t follow the rules?
2. What does the second commandment tell us of God?

 

[fbl9]

I like you guys SO MUCH! :blushing:

:hug1:
i have a friend who is much like you in her views. Unknow to my friend is that she represents a very special milestone in my life. Perhaps maybe that is one of reasons i don’t go Homer and Bart on her when we discuss religion/faith.

Alan spoke of that aha moment,that’s why am catholic.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I have had a bothersome conundrum rolling around in my brain for the past few days, and I would appreciate the kind and gentle insight of my friends at CAF (like fbl9, Alan, RoseMary131), without the knee-jerk judgmental condemnation of others (you know who you are…). If you have nothing constructive to say, please restrain yourself and find another thread to slam. I am exposing a vulnerability here - not because I want to get a ‘boot to the head’, but because I am honestly in search of wisdom.

Take a moment to decide which kind of CAF member you are, before reading further…

OK - now that we have established the boundaries…
When I was young and considering Confirmation, I declined because I felt strongly about lying in Church - in front of God and everybody, about my spiritual beliefs. I remember feeling very torn before I made up my mind: to confirm would make my mother happy - which I’ve never been very good at doing, and my grandparents, both of whom I adored and did not want to disappoint.

When my husband and I were dating, I knew he and his family were Catholic, and he knew my religious background - and we were both respected each other’s beliefs. He asked me if I would consider completing catechism classes after having our previous marriages annulled so that our marriage could be blessed by the Catholic Church. I agreed that after his annulment was approved (since he had been married in the Church, and we weren’t even sure if my first marriage required annulment), I would complete Catechism classes. This didn’t happen because he never submitted his paperwork. I have some ideas about why that happened, but that doesn’t matter now. Having our marriage blessed was more for the benefit of Doug’s parents - not for us.

I’ve tried putting the issue out of my mind, because now the point is moot. It doesn’t matter, but I keep thinking about how, if everything did go through, I know I would have kept my word. Not because I suddenly believed the doctrines of the Church, but because I loved my husband so much, and would have done almost anything to make him happy.

What does this say about me? I rationalize it in my mind that I would have gone through with it because I’m an adult now, and saying that I would have agreed to ‘go along’ with the Church just to make my husband happy wasn’t that big of a deal. I wasn’t lying to God, so much as I wasn’t going to voice my objections to the Catholic Church. Maybe that is why I am here, in this forum - trying to prove to myself that I would have kept my word to Doug, even though doing the exact same thing when I was a kid was so upsetting.

I think the reason Doug didn’t go through with his annulment was similar to what is troubling me now. If he was really honest with the Church, Doug risked being told our marriage could not be blessed, because the nature of his physical injury would prevent him from being married to anyone, at least in the eyes of the Church. Perhaps he didn’t want to lie to the church, any more than I would - then or now.

I intend to start a thread discussing the nature of human sexuality for disabled people in the Catholic Church under to sub-forum “Catholic Living > Family Life” with the title “For Married Eyes Only - physical disability and sexuality” - or if that is too long, “FMEO: physical disability and sexuality” - to address the particulars of the issue.

Thank you for any kind insights you might be willing to share. You (most of you) have been so wonderfully supportive in helping me sort this out.

Peace.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I either wish I was a theologian when it comes to the Church’s marriage laws, or maybe I’m glad I’m not.

Please tell me that God is not so small that He can’t join two people because they are physically unable to perform the physical sexual act. What about people who are paralyzed?

Using this logic, you’d think that once a woman reaches menopause, she would not be allowed to marry at all. Or if a man was unable to produce sperm. But are we measuring that, or are we measuring his ability to perform the sex act itself – which cannot bear children in these situations. So if we were to be consistent about this, every woman and man would need to be tested for fertility, and somehow evaluated for whether their bodily functions are going to perform (since theoretically if it’s their first marriage they won’t know in advance) before they can get married in the Church?

Somehow I bet if we dig in, we’ll find the Church doesn’t actually teach all this stuff. Because if she does, then if I can’t come to a better understanding then at this point it seems to me that the criteria for what makes a valid marriage are arbitrary and have no bearing on the spiritual condition of the marriage. Unless of course all these dire assumptions are wrong – and I hope they are.

Alan

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I either wish I was a theologian when it comes to the Church’s marriage laws, or maybe I’m glad I’m not.

Please tell me that God is not so small that He can’t join two people because they are physically unable to perform the physical sexual act. What about people who are paralyzed?

Using this logic, you’d think that once a woman reaches menopause, she would not be allowed to marry at all. Or if a man was unable to produce sperm. But are we measuring that, or are we measuring his ability to perform the sex act itself – which cannot bear children in these situations. So if we were to be consistent about this, every woman and man would need to be tested for fertility, and somehow evaluated for whether their bodily functions are going to perform (since theoretically if it’s their first marriage they won’t know in advance) before they can get married in the Church?

Somehow I bet if we dig in, we’ll find the Church doesn’t actually teach all this stuff. Because if she does, then if I can’t come to a better understanding then at this point it seems to me that the criteria for what makes a valid marriage are arbitrary and have no bearing on the spiritual condition of the marriage. Unless of course all these dire assumptions are wrong – and I hope they are.

Alan

Apparently not - this is exactly what all the fuss was about from posts #15 (mine) and #21 (aemcpa). My husband was an unrestrained passenger in a head-on collision involving a drunk driver. He was thrown from the vehicle and landed so hard on the ground that his aorta was torn a few inches below his heart. Most people die within a few minutes of this type of injury, but Doug’s left lower lung was torn away and it laid over the tear in the aorta, allowing him to survive long enough to be taken to the hospital and have surgery to repair the aorta. He became paralyzed because of the surgery - the heart-lung bypass machine did not supply oxygenated blood to the lower part of his spinal cord, which resulted in ‘death’ of the spinal cord from about T6 down (mid back). He had no feeling or reflexes from the waist down - which means impotency - which the Catholic Church states anyone with this problem is not to marry. There are devices that can ‘help’ with this issue - perhaps this is why Doug was allowed to marry his first wife in the Catholic Church without much discussion on the matter. Any possibility of having children would have required atypical methods of obtaining genetic material. It wouldn’t have to be in-vitro fertilization, but it certainly could not have been achieved in the way most people are conceived. I am certain his first marriage would have been annulled because his first wife stated she did not expect Doug to live more than 5 years when she married him - nobody expected him to live past 35. He was 34 when we met, and lived until age 47.

I’m sorry to have gotten so long-winded. Doug hated discussing the nature of his disability and the views of the Catholic Church. There is more to human sexuality than simple coitus - but the Church deems almost everything but that as immoral. Quite frankly, it is my opinion that this puritanical attitude is not healthy for anyone. As I mentioned in a different thread (post #8), sexuality should be viewed as a normal aspect of human existence - not as a focal point for condemnation, ridicule and hate.

Ugh… I’m off my soapbox. I do not wish to offend anyone or challenge their beliefs, but this is a subject I feel strongly about.

Peace.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’ve heard the opinion from several priests – conservative priests – that what a married couple does in their bedroom is between them and God.

You can be on the soapbox all you want and you’re not going to offend me over it. I believe that the reason the Church sticks so closely to the topic of sex is that is a metaphor for spiritual truths that use sexual functions as a comparison. For example, “spilling the seed” IMO is a physical metaphor for “throwing pearls to swine,” which in turn is a metaphor for something else. And contraception? That would be a closing off, like hiding – as in Adam hiding from God – where there is a connection that is not made when it could be, symbolizing the state of sin when we are separated from God. So IMO the real “spiritual” meat of the teachings are not in the physical but in the spiritual, and the physical is just a sign.

What if a priest is unable to speak, does he have to quit serving Mass because he cannot “consummate” the consecration?

Alan

 

[fbl9]

Ugh… I’m off my soapbox. I do not wish to offend anyone or challenge their beliefs, but this is a subject I feel strongly about.

Peace.

Canon 1084

§1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

          §2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

§3 Without prejudice to the provisions of Can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.
this is from an article by Jimmy Akin…
looked up “is impotency an impediment to marriage”. and found this there is a fair bit to read. An implant may have been able to make Doug “functionable”.
As we discussed earlier the obeying of the commandments is not just physically obeying them but obeying them in spirit as well.
As it was though you were/are still the wife of your first husband. As your first marriage was valid. without investigation. The Church views the marriage as valid until it has been proved/discovered otherwise.

 

[fbl9]

i am quite the contrast to Doug.
i was involved in a roll over at a very high speed, I was thrown out, as the vehicle went over i was struck face first by the centre of the back wheel.When i came to, i walked a mile to my parent’s home where i was living at the time. My face was a mess, a week later i was out of the hospital.Instead of being grateful i was alive i was peeved that they kept me in over the weekend and i missed the Canada day partying.

You should not be surprised that God used your love for Doug to draw you closer to Him.
For when we love our hearts become piable and as we become piable God is able to conform us to His will.