The Army and being a Catholic

[WatchfulPilgrim]

dying passively usually meant giving one’s life as a witness to the faith. While not all are required to be martyrs, the Church will always honor those who can.

That’s an interesting perspective. I would say that anyone who lives their faith is always a witness to that faith. In giving my life to protect my family for instance I am bearing witness to my faith.

It is one thing to die for the faith and quite another to die for the greed or lust of an assailant.

My perspective on it is that it would be dying for my faith b/c my faith includes that I do no harm to others and if necessary to give my life in the process. The Christian martyr still dies for “the greed and lust of an assailant”. In both cases, a witness to one’s faith is given. In the latter case, one is sacrificing his life for another as well. I can’t seperate my faith from any aspect of my life. I do not cease to bear witness to Christ when a perpetrator enters my home. And who knows if the example my family and myself give (if it costs us our lives) would not change the person’s heart and save his soul? Certainly many lives were changed in witness to Christ’s gentle and humble life and silent sacrifice. We are called to no less.

Abandoning Catholic teaching will not clear any issue up.

As I said, this was probably just the straw that broke the camel’s back. There are much deeper issues involved in my leaving Catholicism.

The vast, vast, vast majority of Protestants who take the Bible alone as interpreted by the individual believer do not hold to the Mennonity view of absolute pacifism.

Just as there is disagreement among Catholics about the same issue. What does that mean? If you are on my side of the issue it becomes a real problem. It may not be dogma, but it is doctrine, and a very important one as it involves the taking of another life. To me it is just as serious as if the CC were to suddenly proclaim a “just-abortion” doctrine. That would be it for me, and I’m sure for many others. That is the problem with the CC’s claims of infallibilty. If the CC suddenly teaches something that is contrary to Christ it blows away the claim IMO. If I thought it was an inarguable fact that the CC that has developed throughout time is the OTC or, that Christ’s Church remained faithful *via succession *I suppose I’d have to accept any proclamation it made as being divine, no matter how anti-Christ the doctrine may seem. So, b/c you first accept the supposed authority of the CC as it is today, you have to submit yourself to its teaching regardless. You have to believe the doctrine was divinely instituted. And no matter how contrary it may be to your reason you have to dismiss your reason altogether b/c you assume it must be flawed in regard to that particular issue. It could very well be that you and the majority of Catholics throughout history simply accept “just war” doctrine b/c it is a product of the CC. I had never studied this doctrine before. I’d heard of it as “theory” and did not know one component of it was that it is okay for Christian involvement in combat. It is quite a shock to me to learn that and sheds some very, very serious doubt as to the CC’s claims and has me re-visiting all of the other un-Christian (don’t know a better way to put it, no offense) Catholic doctrines, dogmas and practices that I have set aside my reason for.

In fact, you will probably find that the Catholic Church is more restrained and restrictive in such matters than most Christians outside the Catholic Church. I know they are far more pacifist than Baptist.

Yes, I agree. There are very few non-C denominations I would ever consider. It took me years to find this Mennonite congregation. They resemble more of a religious order than your typical non-C church - at least this one does. There are many liberal Mennonites in the Boston area I would not associate myself with.

Anyway…

Pnewton says:

While not dogma and no one has claimed it as such, but it is also not theory, but doctrine, as it has been taught for at least 1600 years.

Yes, I meant to post that - I think somehow I deleted that portion from one of my posts. This website (CA) has an article on it called “Just War Doctrine”. I would have no problem with the just war doctrine if it didn’t include Christian participation.

As I said, I do believe war is in God’s plan. You have to throw out the OT otherwise! But I believe Jesus set higher standards for those who live according to the Spirit. The war we fight in this world is not a carnal one, but a spiritual one. Our primary interests should be in the Heavenly Kingdom; saving souls and not just some lives at the expense of others. I don’t think we can decide the fate of another human being. It is not up to us when a person stands in judgement. And we do a disservice to a criminal when we cause him to stand before God in judgment before the possibility of his conversion. Whatsoever we do to the least of God’s people, that we do unto Him. Who could be more least than a cold-blooded murderer? He causes the sun to rise on the good and the bad. I believe only God can decide whose life will be taken and when.

We are called to imitate Christ. He did not “administer justice, punish evildoers, or take up arms for the rights of the oppressed.” Our calling “is to be a herald of the saving gospel of Christ, to be an agent of reconciliation, proclaiming by life and by lips that Christ does save from sin. He does set men free from the tyranny of Satan. He does bring peace-both peace with God and peace with one’s fellowman.” We should “attempt to give a clear witness that God commands all men everywhere to repent, that any violation of the ethic of love…is sin”(in the words of the c/p article above).
Peace~

 

[pnewton]

To me it is just as serious as if the CC were to suddenly proclaim a “just-abortion” doctrine. That would be it for me, and I’m sure for many others. That is the problem with the CC’s claims of infallibilty. If the CC suddenly teaches something that is contrary to Christ it blows away the claim IMO.

Yet this does nothing but beg the question of what is contrary to Christ. The vast majority of Christians now and through history read the same Bible you do and do not come to this same conclusion. Because:

We are called to imitate Christ. He did not “administer justice, punish evildoers, or take up arms for the rights of the oppressed.”

Yes, he has. (The Flood, the Passover in Egypt) and yes, he will again ( Revelation). When he walked this Earth, this was a unique event in all of His eternal existence. His role as sacrifice did not lend itself to any role but that as a lamb…

But he is still the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Yet this does nothing but beg the question of what is contrary to Christ. The vast majority of Christians now and through history read the same Bible you do and do not come to this same conclusion. Because:

Yeeeees?

Yes, he has. (The Flood, the Passover in Egypt)

None of which Jesus did in his earthly ministry.

and yes, he will again ( Revelation).

Right.

When he walked this Earth, this was a unique event in all of His eternal existence. His role as sacrifice did not lend itself to any role but that as a lamb…

We are also called to imitate His life and to participate in His sacrifice “…complete what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ” (our participation). Paul said to imitate him as he imitates Christ. The best-selling Christian book next to the Bible is Thomas a Kempis’s “Imitation of Christ”. A book written by a Catholic, which many great saints held in high esteem. Many highly-esteemed Catholic saints also believed and exemplified a life in imitation of the Lord. None of the things you listed were done by Jesus in His earthly ministry. He condemned no one. He punished no one. He never took up arms to fight the oppression that surrounded Him. He taught us that there is another battle going on behing this earthly battle we see, and THAT battle (the spiritual battle) is the one we should be taking up arms against; armed with the Sword of God’s Mouth.

But he is still the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

Certainly. But not in His earthly ministry. And we are not called to be lions in this pilgrimage we are on here on earth. What animals are we that Jesus is the shepherd of?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Yeeeees? He taught us that there is another battle going on behing this earthly battle we see, and THAT battle (the spiritual battle) is the one we should be taking up arms against; armed with the Sword of God’s Mouth. Certainly. But not in His earthly ministry. And we are not called to be lions in this pilgrimage we are on here on earth. What animals are we that Jesus is the shepherd of?

Another thought along these lines:

“Fear ye not them that kill the body . . . but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

 

[jemfinch]

I was thinking of the insufficient explanation I already gave in answer to this, and did want to try to clarify that, so I’ll answer for myself here (not sure what Hrvoje would answer).

If it were possible to protect them w/out resorting to violence, yes I would try to protect them.

But there may be cases where for all practical purposes, violence is necessary to defend your family. You have yet to show an applicable biblical passage which would condemn such violence.

I have raised several important objections in my other posts; I do wish you would respond to them.

jeremy

 

[pnewton]

None of which Jesus did in his earthly ministry. … But not in His earthly ministry.

I know. If you are going to be Bible only, where in the Bible does it say we are to limit our understanding of God to those three years?

Let us remember that this thread as presented by the OP is about military service from a Catholic perspective, not Mennonite.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I know. If you are going to be Bible only, where in the Bible does it say we are to limit our understanding of God to those three years?

Let us remember that this thread as presented by the OP is about military service from a Catholic perspective, not Mennonite.

That is true. I didn’t realize my perspective was NOT a Catholic one until this thread.

But there may be cases where for all practical purposes, violence is necessary to defend your family.

I don’t believe Jesus left any provision for us to find some circumstances where violence is permissible. I think people look too hard to find them and make their own loopholes.

You have yet to show an applicable biblical passage which would condemn such violence.

I have shown. You disagreed. I also provided ECF citations as well as a few articles that teach it better than I do. One point which I think is a good one is this:

exegetical honesty requires us to test the intent of our Lord’s words by His own example in actual life. Did He mean literally that Christians should not resist an evildoer? That the love of His disciples should be so great that they were willing to offer the other cheek when smitten? Matthew 5:38-48. Did He actually mean that He was sending out His disciples as harmless and defenseless lambs in the midst of wolves? Luke 10:3. Was Paul truly reflecting the spirit of his Lord when he reminded Christians that although they walked in the flesh, they do not war according to the flesh? 2 Corinthians 10:3. Also, when he reminded the young church in Thessalonica not to render evil for evil to anyone? 1 Thessalonians 5:15. Also, that the Lord’s servant must not strive, but be gentle toward all? 2 Timothy 2:24. Was Peter led of the Holy Spirit when he grounded the nonresistant spirit of his Christian readers in the nonresistant example of Jesus Christ who suffered unjustly – even to crucifixion on a felon’s cross? I Peter 2:21-24. Was Peter right in twice asserting that Christians are called to a ministry of nonresistant suffering? 1 Peter 2:21; 3:9. Is it correct that just as the Lord Jesus suffered in the flesh, so the Christian ought to “arm himself” with the same readiness to suffer meekly? 1 Peter 4:1. The witness of history is that the primitive church understood these many injunctions to mean literally what they said. And this witness did not die out until the fourth or fifth century.

From here: bibleviews.com/Biblicalnonresist.html

I have raised several important objections in my other posts; I do wish you would respond to them.

I did read all the posts. I did not want to participate again until things cooled off. I don’t recall seeing anything that particularly impressed me and I really don’t want to re-visit that area of the thread again.

The only reason I came back on this thread was to try to explain what I believe is un-Christian about the doctrine - since I raised the objection and started this whole argument. Since things cooled off a bit and the discussion took at better tone I thought I’d just take an opportunity to try to explain it more sufficiently since I did such a sloppy and angry job at it the first time. I was not pleased with my representation and explanation. I normally would not come on here and just raise objections to what you believe, debate it, and try to convince you. I don’t like when I see non-Cs who are not open to learning about the Catholic faith come on here trying to convert you or bash your beliefs. I know that’s how my objections here came out but that was not my intent in getting involved in it.

I can’t wrap my mind around how the church can have such a doctrine and then canonize saints who were non-resistant. If the non-resistant or pacifist position is not right then it has caused a lot of confusion. I can’t even imagine a St. John of the Cross, a St. Therese of Liseux, Francis of Assisi or Gemma Galgani raising a gun to anyone no matter what. It was not in their spirit to do such a thing b/c it was Christ’s Spirit that was at work in them making them holy. Many saints have lived out and taught against violence. If provision can be made to kill someone then these saints were wrong and they should not be elevated as examples. They believed they were imitating Christ. They believed we should ALL imitate Christ in ALL things possible (“be perfect”). So it simply makes no sense to me that it can be right both ways. It simply can’t. I cannot accept that it does.

So, like I said, I don’t want to debate. Now that I know what this just war doctrine really is, I respectfully disagree and distance myself from the CC. You are free to believe as you do, and if you TRULY believe the teaching is correct, then I respect that. If you only believe it is true b/c the CC tells you so then IMO that is a problem, for you anyway. That is why, as I explained, I cannot accept the Church’s claims - this doctrine is not Christ’s doctrine.

Peace~

 

[pnewton]

That is true. I didn’t realize my perspective was NOT a Catholic one until this thread.

From here: bibleviews.com/Biblicalnonresist.html

I totally think your link shows why Mennonites should not fight in the military. The issue of this thread was for a Catholic facing this situation.

I don’t believe Jesus left any provision for us to find some circumstances where violence is permissible. I think people look too hard to find them and make their own loopholes.

And if we ask the next question about what does the Bible teach, then we will do nothing but beg the question of “according to who?” Your opinion is mandated by the Mennonites and acceptable to the Catholic Church, as is the young person who started this thread. I just do not think it is fair to him to try and convert him from the faith he has to yours because of your consciencious objection.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I totally think your link shows why Mennonites should not fight in the military. The issue of this thread was for a Catholic facing this situation.

And if we ask the next question about what does the Bible teach, then we will do nothing but beg the question of “according to who?” Your opinion is mandated by the Mennonites and acceptable to the Catholic Church, as is the young person who started this thread. I just do not think it is fair to him to try and convert him from the faith he has to yours because of your consciencious objection.

Interesting. You might recall that just yesterday I withdrew from the argument b/c I didn’t want to discuss it further - PRECISELY b/c I’m not interested in converting you and I’m not really interested in the Catholic p.o.v. either. And then several people called it a concession and said I have an obligation to try to help people understand my p.o.v. if I really thought it was true b/c I am oblilgated as a fellow Christian to do so. So I did JUST THAT. So, if I had remained silent it is called a concession and I’m considered uncaring and disinterested in the souls of the people involved in this discussion… And if otoh I come back (like I did) and try to work this out with all of you, I’m criticized also…

You seem to be forgetting also that I came into the thread with the impression that this could not be Catholic doctrine. I came aboard as a Catholic (albeit a weak one), not as a Mennonite. If you don’t believe that you have only to look back to about December in my posts to see my reconciliation with the church.

Did you not just read what I JUST posted today??? Here it is again:

The only reason I came back on this thread was to try to explain what I believe is un-Christian about the doctrine - since I raised the objection and started this whole argument. Since things cooled off a bit and the discussion took at better tone I thought I’d just take an opportunity to try to explain it more sufficiently since I did such a sloppy and angry job at it the first time

jemfinch also said i didn’t respond to some of his posts, so, although YOU may not be interested in my p.o.v., apparently he was. You do not have to keep coming back to discuss this if you don’t want my opinion, which clearly you don’t.

When I found out this was what the just war doctrine was, and after venting a bit in my anger, I decided I did not wish to continue the dialogue. That is still my wish, as I hate confrontation like this and am really not open to Catholic indoctrination at this point. But I felt obligated to return b/c so many things had still been asked me. So I will try to refrain from the forum once again unless someone is truly interested in my p.o.v. which, as you know, is not a Catholic one.

Otherwise, au revoir:tiphat:

 

[Harmony1988]

Interesting. You might recall that just yesterday I withdrew from the argument b/c I didn’t want to discuss it further - PRECISELY b/c I’m not interested in converting you and I’m not really interested in the Catholic p.o.v. either. And then several people called it a concession and said I have an obligation to try to help people understand my p.o.v. if I really thought it was true b/c I am oblilgated as a fellow Christian to do so. So I did JUST THAT. So, if I had remained silent it is called a concession and I’m considered uncaring and disinterested in the souls of the people involved in this discussion… And if otoh I come back (like I did) and try to work this out with all of you, I’m criticized also…

You seem to be forgetting also that I came into the thread with the impression that this could not be Catholic doctrine. I came aboard as a Catholic (albeit a weak one), not as a Mennonite. If you don’t believe that you have only to look back to about December in my posts to see my reconciliation with the church.

Did you not just read what I JUST posted today??? Here it is again:

jemfinch also said i didn’t respond to some of his posts, so, although YOU may not be interested in my p.o.v., apparently he was. You do not have to keep coming back to discuss this if you don’t want my opinion, which clearly you don’t.

When I found out this was what the just war doctrine was, and after venting a bit in my anger, I decided I did not wish to continue the dialogue. That is still my wish, as I hate confrontation like this and am really not open to Catholic indoctrination at this point. But I felt obligated to return b/c so many things had still been asked me. So I will try to refrain from the forum once again unless someone is truly interested in my p.o.v. which, as you know, is not a Catholic one.

Otherwise, au revoir:tiphat:

With all due respect, I would hardly call this thread “catholic indoctrination” I think I have quoted one Catholic source and that was because I thought you were Catholic as per your profile description, if anything it’s you, who has misled people.

The rest of my argumentation was either directly from the Bible or from protestant sources (funnily enough), there was very little ‘catholic points of view’ in most of this thread, mainly because catholics also differ in their views, I believe me and jemfinch also differed in somethings in this thread alone.

So to leave this argument because of ‘catholic indoctrination’ is a feeble attempt to get away from this, if you do not wish to continue dialogue, then just say so, instead of conjecturing funny theories. No one’s trying to convert anyone here. I know you aren’t, and neither are we.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

With all due respect, I would hardly call this thread “catholic indoctrination” I think I have quoted one Catholic source and that was because I thought you were Catholic as per your profile description, if anything it’s you, who has misled people.

The rest of my argumentation was either directly from the Bible or from protestant sources (funnily enough), there was very little ‘catholic points of view’ in most of this thread, mainly because catholics also differ in their views, I believe me and jemfinch also differed in somethings in this thread alone.

So to leave this argument because of ‘catholic indoctrination’ is a feeble attempt to get away from this, if you do not wish to continue dialogue, then just say so, instead of conjecturing funny theories. No one’s trying to convert anyone here. I know you aren’t, and neither are we.

I’m glad you realize that is not was I was doing. However,

Pnewton said:

I just do not think it is fair to him to try and convert him

Apparently he thinks I am trying to convert you.

I’ve misled no one. You may misunderstand what has happened to me as a result of this thread. I am the one who has been misled - by the CC. And b/c of all of you and this thread I have come to realize that, for which I am grateful.

Now knowing my error in having returned to the CC, it would be unwise to stay here and allow the CC, via all of you, to try to brainwash yet another Christian principal out of my convictions. It is just as wrong for me to stay here as it would be for me to invite a group of JWs into my home to discuss Jesus is not God. It is a biblical command that I not continue the dialogue

Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”

Titus 1.13, “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” (which I have done)

.Ephesians 5:11, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

II Thessalonians 3:6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us.” (See also I Timothy 6:3-5).

II John 10-11, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,** receive him not into your house**, neither bid him God speed; (internet does this very thing, does it not?)

11 Thessalonians 3:14, "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him

Titus 3:10, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition, reject.”(already done, more than twice)

II Corinthians 6:17, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate

So no, I’m not interested in continuing the dialogue.

Good Day~

 

[pnewton]

Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”

Titus 1.13, “This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” (which I have done)

.Ephesians 5:11, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

II Thessalonians 3:6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us.” (See also I Timothy 6:3-5).

II John 10-11, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,** receive him not into your house**, neither bid him God speed; (internet does this very thing, does it not?)

11 Thessalonians 3:14, "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him

Titus 3:10, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition, reject.”(already done, more than twice)

II Corinthians 6:17, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate

This groups of scriptures are used extensively by anticatholics. They are a mainstay in Jack Chick tracks. They all have two things in common. First, they are lifted out of context and cut and pasted together to form a mosaic of something that they do not say when left in context.

Second, they are used in this fashion as circular logic. They only have meaning the one using them is right and the one they are directed at is wrong. They are an avoidance of arguement, not an arguement. In this specific post, it assumes the Catholic is a heretic (Titus 3:10), disordered (II Thessalonians 3:6), an unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11), divisive (Romans 16:17) and worldly (II Corinthians 6:17).

Never be deceived by proof texting. If some one ever plays cut and paste with the Bible, your interpretation radar should go up. Such a one is trying to bring out of the Bible what they want, not understand the Bible for what it says.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

This groups of scriptures are used extensively by anticatholics. They are a mainstay in Jack Chick tracks. They all have two things in common. First, they are lifted out of context and cut and pasted together to form a mosaic of something that they do not say when left in context.

Second, they are used in this fashion as circular logic. They only have meaning the one using them is right and the one they are directed at is wrong. They are an avoidance of arguement, not an arguement. In this specific post, it assumes the Catholic is a heretic (Titus 3:10), disordered (II Thessalonians 3:6), an unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11), divisive (Romans 16:17) and worldly (II Corinthians 6:17).

Never be deceived by proof texting. If some one ever plays cut and paste with the Bible, your interpretation radar should go up. Such a one is trying to bring out of the Bible what they want, not understand the Bible for what it says.

I cut and pasted from memory, looked up the verses to make sure they were worded correctly. I have enough Scripture memorized that they come to mind quite easily. No Jack Chick or whatever else you insinuated needed. God’s Word abides in me.

 

[LJN21]

I cut and pasted from memory, looked up the verses to make sure they were worded correctly. I have enough Scripture memorized that they come to mind quite easily. No Jack Chick or whatever else you insinuated needed. God’s Word abides in me.

Regardless of where you got them, they are still out of context and distorted in meaning because of it.

 

[pnewton]

I cut and pasted from memory, looked up the verses to make sure they were worded correctly. I have enough Scripture memorized that they come to mind quite easily.

The point is that they have nothing to do with each other or the topic. Only two of the verses were written at the same time. (Titus) The Bible is not a magic book where we can take things out of context and use them as either weapons or insults. That is what the devil did in the wilderness. Context is everything.

 

[GloriusMaximus]

I cut and pasted from memory, looked up the verses to make sure they were worded correctly. I have enough Scripture memorized that they come to mind quite easily. No Jack Chick or whatever else you insinuated needed. God’s Word abides in me.

No, pnewton is right in what he asserted. Those biblical passages is speaking of the heretic, therefore to use them you must first prove the heretic. We could easily use that against you as you just did to us, but we’d have to prove it first.

It’s irrelevant whether you looked them up and cut and pasted it or memorized it and then cut and pasted it, that’s not the point here. The point is that these are bits of scripture from different parts of the Bible that you’ve taken and mashed together to prove a bigger ‘supposed’ point, that’s not how it works. If anything you’d need to take a look at all those verses carefully or analyze them line by line first, not post 20 different lines and hope that no one will notice.

But we won’t go into that, and we aren’t impressed by “I have enough Scripture memorized that they come to mind quite easily” - There are plenty of others in this world that have the same ability, it’s also a non-sensical point in the context of this thread here.

 

[Harmony1988]

I cut and pasted from memory, looked up the verses to make sure they were worded correctly. I have enough Scripture memorized that they come to mind quite easily. No Jack Chick or whatever else you insinuated needed. God’s Word abides in me.

No, pnewton is right in what he asserted. Those biblical passages are speaking of the heretic, therefore to use them you must first prove the heretic. We could easily use that against you as you just did to us, but we’d have to prove it first.

It’s irrelevant whether you looked them up and cut and pasted it, or memorized it and then cut and pasted it, that’s not the point here.

Furthermore, you still haven’t responded to the contradiction in John 9:18 that I presented earlier.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Harmony1988
Furthermore, you still haven’t responded to the contradiction in John 9:18 that I presented earlier.

From PM:

Pilgrim:
Do you really want my response? It is not a Catholic one from what I’ve been told. I don’t want to come across as converting you, and I am not interested in being converted. If I am going to be accused of doing something wrong by giving you my opinion (what you consider my opinion anyway) then forget it.

Also, I am not interested in engaging in conversation if it is going to cause a lot of finger pointing, insults and rage from anyone (me included - not that you have any control over that ).

I will start out by saying that I knew I was out of line with some of the Scriptures I cited about heretics. Yes, at this point I see the CC as an apostate church. I have for the better part of the past 5 or more years. In light of that, those Scriptures were applicable. Not to you personally, but to the CC in general (which you represent). And you (or whoever said it) are correct in saying that in your p.o.v., they are applicable to me. So, I guess I’m not sure why we should continue?

Think about it please, pray about it please, and then tell me if you truthfully want my p.o.v.

I have enabled my PM for your response. I really am trying to get away from this forum, but feel inclined to come back b/c, although my convictions on this are strong, I know I’ve been a jerk throughout this thread. And I’ve no problem copy/pasting this PM to the thread as my admittance if you want to continue (slowly, and prayerfully).

What say you?

Harmony:
Mate, just post your response to it, we don’t really mind where the point of view comes from as long as you don’t accuse anyone of catholic indoctrination. No need to apologize about being a jerk, for the most part I’ve been too.

I don’t really understand why you have to PM me about this, not that I blocked you, but that John 9:18 isn’t really a denominational issue, but rather brought up to illustrate that some knowledge of greek is important or at least an understanding that the english is not always sufficient. And on that point, I think anyone can agree, regardless of the denomination.

Harmony’s original post:

1 - The Bible’s original language may differ in meaning to English and apparent contradictions can arise which can only be resolved in the original language:

From John 9:
Conclusion: The Jews drove him out so they obviously did not believe him, therefore verse 18 has a different meaning than what is said. → Check up ‘until’ in Greek and Latin:

orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm

You are correct - I didn’t respond to this entirely. I read it so quickly I didn’t even notice the part about John 9.

cont…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

First of all, there are passages in the Bible that look like contradictions. That is true. I think exegesis is very important in that regard. But John 9 is not one of the contradictions. At least, I see none.

So, to the point:

I have to start off saying that I looked up what you called the KJV account of this Scripture and I don’t see the same wording? You gave me this:

John 9 - “The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight”
“They answered him, ‘You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?’ And they drove him out.”

(this was from one of your posts, not sure which. I think on page 8 somewhere, but maybe not the original one - not sure…)
I assume you mean this (from the KJV if you wish):

18But **the Jews did not believe **concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, **until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. **…
34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

You did welcome me to read the entire chapter, which was good advice.

The Jews simply didn’t like what the (once)-blind man had to say. They were hoping to find some way to accuse Jesus. They didn’t believe this man was blind at all. Here is the full account from the first verse you cited 'til the last (again, from the KJV):

18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. 19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: …

So it is true that they did not know that he had been blind until they called the parents. They didn’t believe…they asked them…and they said that he was born blind.

So where is the contradiction? And what does that have to do with them driving him out?

I’ll continue:

21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. 22These words spake his parents,** because they feared the Jews:** for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. 24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. meaning Jesus 25He (the blind man)answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. 26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? 28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. 29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners(the Jews are saying this): but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. (they assume he could not have been healed by God b/c he is a sinner)
32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. (–this said by the blind man) 34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

They cast him out b/c he admitted that he believed the man (Jesus) was “of God”. And the Jews don’t like the conclusion that a simple, once-born-blind-man came to, b/c he was a sinner.

This is a re-occuring theme. Jesus does or says something (or here, the blind man says something) that points to Jesus’ divinity. And the Jews are looking for just that. They want to kill him b/c of His supposed blasphemy.

I’ve had many discussions like this one with JWs a few years ago. I was blown away when they said they didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity. It is all throughout Scripture. As well, I believe, is the “trinity”.

Now that I have explained (and - I think - I did so sufficiently) your inquiry to me about John 9, I’ve no problem with hearing your side.

 

[jemfinch]

You still have not provided one single verse, WatchfulPilgrim, which would condemn violent defense of others when the circumstances provide no other alternative.

Jeremy