Where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe? (SPLIT)

[sallybutler]

My understanding is that the following books in the Bible are not from Moses, the Psalms, or prophets. They are often called Historical Books. Does that mean they should be excluded from Scripture?

Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel and 2 Samuel
1 Kings and 2 Kings
1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther

These are called the Poetry books. Should they also be excluded?

Job
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs

That leaves us with the first 5 books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Psalms, and the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) for a total of 23.

 

[fasolislithuan]

I, delighted, continue reading this interesting “give and take” Thanks to all.

Having said which, I have to say that all those theories (Jamnia canon, Holy Spirit guidance discerning among 400 books, etc…) are certainly untenable. For example the Jamnia Canon never was established, is a false claim based in a generalization of the some writtings of a jew historian called Heinrich Graetz. Luther never argued about this jewish Council to reject the Deuterocanonical, neither the rest of odd theories some protestant friends have shown here. Luther rejected the Deuterocanonical Books because for him they weren’t God-breathed. They were considered Apocryphal for him. Period. The Reformation followed Luther’s decision and the rest is history. That’s the protestant canon. The Jamnia Canon, like the rest of explanations, is simply another pretext to justify the cutting of this seven books without to have to fall all the responsability upon Luther. I’ll say the justification of the protestant canon trying to dodge Luther’s decision is only a collection of pretext that doesn’t work as a whole.

In certain way (and even more after reading all messages of this thread) my question of the first message is rethorical. If someone wants to know when and for whom was established the contents of the Bible it’s insultingly easy to know. For the catholic position there is official documentation available for anyone. And the essential: The canon was established because the Catholic Church in councils determined it with infallibility, based in its apostolic authority. That’s its claim. The people can reject or disbelieve this authority and this infallibility but it doesn’t change the grounds of this process. Respect the protestant postition is the same (is easy to know). The protestant canon was decided by Luther and his close followers, because he believed the Deuterocanonical books weren’t God-breathed. It hasn’t to do with Jamnia, neither Holy Spirit discerning among 400 books, neither another pretextes. It would be really appreciated a bit of sincerity and honesty.

I think, and that’s my conjecture, the reason why protestants need to find Deus-ex-machina explanations is because they subconsciously admit Luther didn’t have authority to discard these books. In the deeper of their hearts they think it, they know it and that’s why they consciously build a disjointed hypothesis with a lot of pieces that don’t easily fit. But they tenaciously attempt it and this is worthy of praise, although unconvincing.

For me, and this has been my existential approch to the issue of the Bible canon, the things has been easier than for my protestant fellows. I haven’t needed a lot of arguments, because the issue can be summarized in believing or not Jesus’ words. Based in his words there are only two possilities for a person:

1. To not believe Jesus is God, neither in his words. Jesus was only a man who believed himself God. The Bible is only another book, enjoyable as Don Quixote, The Divine Comedy or a Volume of Shakespeare’s Complete Works
2. To believe Jesus is God. To believe his words is to believe He established His Church. His Church preserved, compiled and canonized the Bible with the exact and complete contents of God’s Word. To believe the former is to believe the Catholic Church is the infallible Church of Christ and its canonized Bible (73 books) is the infallible and complete God’s Word.

For me, there aren’t more possibilites. Is not possible, for example, the protestant ‘illusion’, i.e. the existence of a reliable protestant Bible and a fake catholic Bible with more books. If the Catholic Church is a fallible church the catholic Bible is not the true and complete God’s Word, then it’s not possible a formal Bible (catholic, protestant or whatever) as the exact and complete God’s Word. Even more. If I believe in this possibility I would be atheist.

This is how I’ve reached this dillema:

CONT

 

[fasolislithuan]

a) If I don’t believe that God has transmitted us the truth of the exact contents of the Bible I would never believe the Bible is the exact God’s Word.

b) The canon, therefore should be formed with the complete and exact God’s Word because I believe God’s transmitted to us this complete and undubitable truth. I support this only in my personal faith, not in historical, scientific or logical arguments. Therefore the expression “The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books” is unacceptable for my faith. Therefore, either the Bible is the complete God’s Word or the Bible is not God’s Word (incomplete or fake)

c) I believe all christians who love Jesus (without exception) can be inspired from the Holy Spirit in their lifes. But I’m also convinced that the guide into all truth is only reserved to the apostles. The Bible gives us answers: Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13) The rest of us, although can receive advices from the Holy Spirit cannot be into all truth all the time. Therefore we are fallible. The apostles, however, based in Jesus’ promise in John 16:13 just after receiving the Holy Spirit were infallible (because they were guided by Holy Spirit into all truth). The first consideration here, would be: What were the method this infallibility was practised by the apostles? In isolation perhaps? No. The Bible says us it was practised by council. The second consideration would be: This infallibility was transmitted from the apostles to their sucessors or it expired with the death of the last apostle? Interesting question.

d) By means of subjectivity (even if I believe I’m inspired by the Holy Spirit) I either cannot discern with absolute certainty which books (hundreds of books have such aspiration, gospels, epistles, etc…) are or aren’t exactly God’s Word, therefore I cannot know if any Bible in my hands is or isn’t the exact and complete God’s Word. I know I cannot know this because I’m (although the eventual inspiration of the Holy Spirit) fallible (actually all human beings except the apostles are fallible). So my personal consideration of which books are God’s Word can be erroneous. I have a serious problem here: The Bible cannot self-validate, self-verify, sel-certify its exact contents because it hasn’t a table of contents. Not a single man (fallible), not even Luther can validate, verify with certainty the exact and correct contents of the Bible because all men are fallible (except apostles). Not a single neither a set of logical, historical, scientific criterion can guarantee which is the exact and perfect contents of the Bible, because any criterion is human, and therefore fallible. Only a divine and infallible authority (God or the apostles) can do it with infallibility. But, after the death of the apostles, did this infallible apostolic authority survive? According the Catholic Church it does exist today. The rest of the world denies this possibility.

e) If the apostolic infallibility practised in councils by apostles wasn’t passed on their succesors (the Apostolic Church), then never has existed such a Church with apostolic infallibility. Therefore, there is not a real Apostolic Church, only many churches with different denominations (catholic, orthodox, protestants, etc…) fallibles churches of fallible followers of Christ. The councils are unnecesary, because any consensual truth from those fallible councils leads to fallible and dubious truths. Therefore any Bible Canon established by any of those churches:
e1) by councils,
e2) or by means of personal decision of certain church intellectuals as Jerome, Augustine, Luther, etc…
e3) or by means of human criterions as logical inerrancy, historical evidence, scientific or another formal coherence
are all of them equally fallible and untrustworthy. Therefore any Bible canonized in any of those ways (or all together) but without apostolic infallibility is a fake God’s Word

f)The Catholic Church is the only Church on Earth that claims this apostolic infallibility. If the Catholic Church is not that authority, if its claim is spurious and false then there is not such infallible authority on Earth and logically and as a result is not possible know the real and complete God’s Word, because all process of Bible canonization is necessarily fallible without this authority.

In conclusion,** without the apostolic infallibility transmitted to the Church of Christ there is no possibility that any Bible is the exact God’s Word**. We can miss some books or some books are spurious. Perhaps both. Therefore we’re unconsciously been led astray because either we don’t know the complete truth of God or we follow false truths. In my case this dillema has led me to make a decision. Either I believe that infallible-apostolic authority has been transmitted for Christ in His Church and this Church compiled and canonized the exact contents of the Bible without possible error or then there is not untrustworthy God’s Word. In another terms. Like the only Church that claim this apostolic infallibility is the Catholic Church I’ve been sure about this: Either I’m believe that the claim of the Catholic Church is true and then I’m catholic or I’m atheist, because then all this issue of churches, Bibles, etc… are only a human and fallible invention.

 

[Porknpie]

Actually, I have nearly 16 years of Catholic school (including college), as well as a Master in Business Administration, which taught me “how” to study critically. I have also studied Hebrew & Greek.

The Priest giving the homily here has:

• a B.A. in Philosophy and Theology (U of Detroit) summa cum laude
• a Master of Divinity and Bachelor of Sacred Theology (Loyola University) magna cum laude.
• a Master of Arts, Ph.D. in Old Testament (Vanderbilt U)
• Is fluent in twelve languages including Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek

For one, he would disagree with you on the Lord’s Supper being symbolic, particularly your exegesis of John 6, which is not supported by the writings and teaching of the Church through time.

Wherever the disciples went to establish communities of faith, they all believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All of them. From Spain, to Africa, to Turkey, to India. They all believed that Christ was speaking literally.

 

[thetazlord]

Sure. There’s a figurative aspect to John 6. Just not figurative ONLY.

That’s the problem with so many heresies. They insert “ONLY” where none needs to be.

The Eucharist is symbolic ONLY. {nope} The Eucharist* is* symbolic. Just not symbolic ONLY.

Okay, let’s assume this is true that the Eucharist isn’t “only” symbolic, but literal too. Since you brought up John 6, I have a question for you then. In John 6:53, Jesus states:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

The Greek word for “unless” (ean mē) means “except, or if not” - in other words, “ONLY.” So, let’s assume Jesus is indeed speaking both figurative and literal here. Then based on the Greek, Jesus is saying:

“unless “except, or if not”] you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

So, since Jesus is indeed God, & Got cannot contradict what He says, then does that mean that if a person doesn’t literally eat Jesus’ figurative and literal “body” & “blood” during communion once it has been transubstantiated from the bread & wine & if he were to die, then does that mean they would end up in Hell? What about all those baptized babies who died who didn’t literally eat the Eucharist? What about all those people who never heard the Gospel & never literally ate the Eucharist? What about martyrs who didn’t? What about the repentant thief on the cross who didn’t? Remember, Jesus is God, so He can’t contradict what He says. So, let’s assume your interpretation of that verse is correct & I am wrong (even though nowhere in the passage does it say anything about communion, let alone the “substance” of the bread & wine “transforming” into the body & blood of Jesus, like it does in John 2 where it says the water “became” wine), then please explain how God can let any of the above groups of people who died who have not literally eaten the Eucharist into Heaven.

Grace to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, let’s assume this is true that the Eucharist isn’t “only” symbolic, but literal too. Since you brought up John 6, I have a question for you then. In John 6:53, Jesus states:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

The Greek word for “unless” (ean mē) means “except, or if not” - in other words, “ONLY.” So, let’s assume Jesus is indeed speaking both figurative and literal here. Then based on the Greek, Jesus is saying:

“unless “except, or if not”] you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

So, since Jesus is indeed God, & Got cannot contradict what He says, then does that mean that if a person doesn’t literally eat Jesus’ figurative and literal “body” & “blood” during communion once it has been transubstantiated from the bread & wine & if he were to die, then does that mean they would end up in Hell? What about all those baptized babies who died who didn’t literally eat the Eucharist? What about all those people who never heard the Gospel & never literally ate the Eucharist? What about martyrs who didn’t? What about the repentant thief on the cross who didn’t? Remember, Jesus is God, so He can’t contradict what He says. So, let’s assume your interpretation of that verse is correct & I am wrong (even though nowhere in the passage does it say anything about communion, let alone the “substance” of the bread & wine “transforming” into the body & blood of Jesus, like it does in John 2 where it says the water “became” wine), then please explain how God can let any of the above groups of people who died who have not literally eaten the Eucharist into Heaven.

Grace to you.

Could you first answer the question I posed earlier: does it make sense that Jesus would not sanction an actual violation of the Levitical laws, but would command a figurative one, taz?

 

[thetazlord]

The Priest giving the homily here has:

• a B.A. in Philosophy and Theology (U of Detroit) summa cum laude
• a Master of Divinity and Bachelor of Sacred Theology (Loyola University) magna cum laude.
• a Master of Arts, Ph.D. in Old Testament (Vanderbilt U)
• Is fluent in twelve languages including Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek

For one, he would disagree with you on the Lord’s Supper being symbolic, particularly your exegesis of John 6, which is not supported by the writings and teaching of the Church through time.

Wherever the disciples went to establish communities of faith, they all believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All of them. From Spain, to Africa, to Turkey, to India. They all believed that Christ was speaking literally.

Actually, if you read John 6, as well as the Last Supper, nothing in those passages mention anything about the “substance” of the bread & wine “transforming” into the literal body & blood of Jesus. In fact, John 6 isn’t even talking about communion, because early on in the passage it mentions that Jesus had already fed the 5,000 someplace else. Education is valuable, by proper Biblical exegesis is necessary. Refer also to my other post (#203) to PRMerger on this subject.

 

[thetazlord]

Could you first answer the question I posed earlier: does it make sense that Jesus would not sanction an actual violation of the Levitical laws, but would command a figurative one, taz?

Of course if it’s a figurative one ONLY. But that’s not what weren’t talking about. You believe that the Eucharist (the transubstantiation of the bread & wine into the body & blood of Jesus) is both literal AND figurative. If that is true, then as you said, Jesus isn’t just speaking “figurative” ONLY, but also literal as well. So, since He’s speaking literal - as well - wouldn’t your interpretation be a violation of Levitical Law?

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, let’s assume this is true that the Eucharist isn’t “only” symbolic, but literal too. Since you brought up John 6, I have a question for you then. In John 6:53, Jesus states:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

The Greek word for “unless” (ean mē) means “except, or if not” - in other words, “ONLY.” So, let’s assume Jesus is indeed speaking both figurative and literal here. Then based on the Greek, Jesus is saying:

“unless “except, or if not”] you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

So, since Jesus is indeed God, & Got cannot contradict what He says, then does that mean that if a person doesn’t literally eat Jesus’ figurative and literal “body” & “blood” during communion once it has been transubstantiated from the bread & wine & if he were to die, then does that mean they would end up in Hell? What about all those baptized babies who died who didn’t literally eat the Eucharist? What about all those people who never heard the Gospel & never literally ate the Eucharist? What about martyrs who didn’t? What about the repentant thief on the cross who didn’t? Remember, Jesus is God, so He can’t contradict what He says. So, let’s assume your interpretation of that verse is correct & I am wrong (even though nowhere in the passage does it say anything about communion, let alone the “substance” of the bread & wine “transforming” into the body & blood of Jesus, like it does in John 2 where it says the water “became” wine), then please explain how God can let any of the above groups of people who died who have not literally eaten the Eucharist into Heaven.

Grace to you.

There are a multitude of things Scripture says we must do in order to be saved: be baptized, forgive our brethren, repent, believe, declare with our mouths, eat his flesh and drink his blood, come to a knowledge of the truth, receive his grace, feed the hungry*…

for those who do none, some, or all–the Catholic position is that we can hope for their salvation.

*Incidentally, what’s NOT in that list is: make an altar call (NOWHERE in the Bible) or read the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course if it’s a figurative one ONLY.

LOL!

So God could command a figurative idolatry? And a figurative adultery?

 

[thetazlord]

My understanding is that the following books in the Bible are not from Moses, the Psalms, or prophets. They are often called Historical Books. Does that mean they should be excluded from Scripture?

Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel and 2 Samuel
1 Kings and 2 Kings
1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther

These are called the Poetry books. Should they also be excluded?

Job
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs

That leaves us with the first 5 books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Psalms, and the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) for a total of 23.

Actually, there are only 2 books from the Protestant OT canon that are not a direct quote nor referenced from the NT. However, they do fall into three-fold division of the “Prophets” & the “Psalms,” along with the “Law” that Jesus states from Luke 24:44-45.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course if it’s a figurative one ONLY. But that’s not what weren’t talking about. You believe that the Eucharist (the transubstantiation of the bread & wine into the body & blood of Jesus) is both literal AND figurative. If that is true, then as you said, Jesus isn’t just speaking “figurative” ONLY, but also literal as well. So, since He’s speaking literal - as well - wouldn’t your interpretation be a violation of Levitical Law?

I don’t have a problem with God making any command that violates prior commands.

That’s because I am a creature and not the Creator, and if God commands, I obey.

Just like I don’t have a problem with violation of human sacrifice that saved me from the gates of hell.

And apparently, you don’t have problem with God violating his own command either.

That’s not consistent, taz.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, there are only 2 books from the Protestant OT canon that are not a direct quote nor referenced from the NT. However, they do fall into three-fold division of the “Prophets” & the “Psalms,” along with the “Law” that Jesus states from Luke 24:44-45.

Can you please cite where the NT quotes these OT books: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum?

Also, if quotation = canonicity, we’ll need to add Enoch and the Assumption of Moses into the canon, as well as some pagan poets, since those are quoted in the NT.

 

[thetazlord]

LOL!

So God could command a figurative idolatry? And a figurative adultery?

http://media.tumblr.com/6a27b285f5b36df3f539a929d577e396/tumblr_inline_n2jpzc2m8h1rcrw1m.gif

You’re not comprehending what I’m saying (or perhaps you aren’t comprehending what you’re even asking). If there isn’t a specific command from God - either in the OT or NT - about ONLY “figuratively consuming” something (like being figuratively “consuming” or “eating” Jesus), then no, it’s not idolatry. However, since Levitical Law does prohibit the literal eating of blood of any flesh, then a figurative + literal interpretation would be violation of Levitical Law, because it involves a literal interpretation, not just a “figurative” one ONLY. I know you are having trouble comprehending this, so PLEASE read this over a few times before responding, but it gets frustrating having to repeat myself over & over again attempting to reword something so simple that “should” be easy to grasp.

Blessings to you.

 

[thetazlord]

I don’t have a problem with God making any command that violates prior commands.

That’s because I am a creature and not the Creator, and if God commands, I obey.

But the God of the Bible can’t violate His prior commands. In fact, Scripture explicitly states “God cannot change.” Therefore, a “god” who “can” violate his prior commands is not the God of the Bible, who “I” obey.

Just like I don’t have a problem with violation of human sacrifice that saved me from the gates of hell.

A human sacrifice “alone” wouldn’t save you from the gates of Hell. Jesus’ atonement had to be both human AND God. Therefore, it’s not a violation, because the command to prohibit of human sacrifice in the OT involved the sacrifice of human beings sacrificing only human beings. Christ’s atonement involved the God-Man being the will of God - not man. IOW, God was the One Who willed the God-Man Christ to be sacrificed on the cross.

And apparently, you don’t have problem with God violating his own command either.

That’s not consistent, taz.

When you understand the difference between humans sacrificing humans, & God sending His God-Man to be sacrificed in our place (the atonement), you’ll realize it’s not a contradiction, like the contradiction of God commanding mankind not to eat the blood of any flesh, but then commanding us to eat His “literal” blood. I asked you to read through my reply a few times before answering. But based on how quickly you replied, it’s obvious that you didn’t do that, which demonstrates you aren’t understanding the question being raised. Try again.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re not comprehending what I’m saying (or perhaps you aren’t comprehending what you’re even asking).

This is true. Most of what you write has a degree of cognitive dissonance that it does make me wonder if you’ve connected the logical dots together.

You are saying that it’s just fine for God to command a figurative violation of his laws, but not a literal one.

That one just boggles. And is indeed, incomprehensible, to me that a man who has the ability to think critically can actually propose such nonsense.

God would never command a literal drinking of his blood because that would violate his command, but a figurative one, well,

That doesn’t violate his command because, heck, it’s just a figurative drinking of it.

Imagine your son telling you: I know you said not to engage in premarital sex, but I didn’t actually* literally* do it. I just figuratively did that through the internet. So you’re fine with that, right, dad?

 

[thetazlord]

Can you please cite where the NT quotes these OT books: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum?

Also, if quotation = canonicity, we’ll need to add Enoch and the Assumption of Moses into the canon, as well as some pagan poets, since those are quoted in the NT.

Again, you didn’t comprehend what I said. Jesus recognized the OT canon by saying, “the Law…the Prophets…AND the Psalms” (Luke 24:44-45), rather than just saying “the Law & the Prophets.” That’s because when He corrected the Pharisees, He quoted their Scriptures, which even CA Jimmy Akin admits were the EXACT SAME as the Protestant OT canon. “The Psalms” (which were part of the “third” part of the THREE-fold division of Luke 24:44-45) included the Poetic Books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job), the ‘Five Rolls’ (‘Megilloth’ - Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), & the ‘Historical Books’ (Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, (I & II) Chronicles). Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, Lamentations, & Nahum were covered under the “second” part of the THREE-fold division Luke 24:44-45, just as they are when Jesus simply states “the Law AND the Prophets” elsewhere in Scripture.

The NT not quoting every book of the OT doesn’t make it not Inspired. My response about that had nothing to do with that. I was addressing a different issue with another poster. So your comment is irrelevant. Plus, it doesn’t change the fact that Protestants are accused of “removing” books from the Bible, because it’s believed by Catholics that they are Inspired simply because they were in the Septuagint. Yet, Catholics fail to see that they too “removed” books from the Septuagint as well. In fact, it early versions of the Bible, Psalm 151 was in there, but later “versions” had it “removed.” So, let’s not throw stones for doing the same thing.

 

[PRmerger]

But the God of the Bible can’t violate His prior commands.

Really?

God says not to worship men. Yet he came down as a man and permitted us to worship him.

God tells us that it is appointed to men to die once, yet…he let some die twice. And, some will not die at all.

How is it that you think God can’t violate his prior commands?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, you didn’t comprehend what I said.

Too true. Too true.

I cannot make sense of the inconsistencies in your arguments, taz.

I hope that through my questioning you will be able to connect the dots, however.

Jesus recognized the OT canon by saying, “the Law…the Prophets…AND the Psalms” (Luke 24:44-45), rather than just saying “the Law & the Prophets.” That’s because when He corrected the Pharisees, He quoted their Scriptures,

Very Catholic, this.

Proverbs is part of Psalms, then?

which even CA Jimmy Akin admits were the EXACT SAME as the Protestant OT canon. "

Source, please?

 

[thetazlord]

You are saying that it’s just fine for God to command a figurative violation of his laws, but not a literal one.

NO! I’M NOT SAYING THAT! YOU ARE! “I’m” saying that God wouldn’t give a literal command, & then later command the opposite. But if He is strictly gives a figurative that He didn’t previously command not to, then He would neither be contradicting Himself, nor violating Himself because there was no previous command prohibiting this figurative command. Honestly, I don’t how much more simple I can explain this!

God would never command a literal drinking of his blood because that would violate his command, but a figurative one, well,

But as a Catholic, you don’t believe it’s “only” figurative to “eat” Jesus’ body & blood at communion, but also literal. It’s the “literal” command that is the issue, which conflicts with God’s previous command not to eat any blood that you’re not comprehending.

That doesn’t violate his command because, heck, it’s just a figurative drinking of it.

And as a Catholic, you also believe it’s literal too, not just figurative ONLY. That is the violation from God’s previous command - literal.

Imagine your son telling you: I know you said not to engage in premarital sex, but I didn’t actually* literally* do it. I just figuratively did that through the internet.

Oh my goodness, that’s not even the same thing! Yes, Jesus equated lust with the act of adultery as a violation of the Seventh Commandment, but that’s because lust is a literal thought, which was identified with the sin of adultery in the OT (Proverbs 6:25). As a Catholic you should know this. So, your analogy isn’t even close to being the same thing. Again, this only proves you aren’t comprehending what I’m saying! And - AGAIN - READ what I write, & think through your replies BEFORE commenting…PLEASE! It will greatly aid in our exchanges.