The Eucharist

balshan

Well-known member
Are you sure? Didn't God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? And what about the Canaanite children and infants who may have been killed with the invasion by Joshua and the Israelites?
Did God intend to follow through sacrifice of Isaac?

Let me see the Canaanites knew God was with Joshua and they knew that they faced His wrath, why did they remain? Who was the cause of the children and infants being killed? Where they all killed isn't there a remnant that remained. Does all mean all? Apparently, it only means all when it suits the RCC teachings. It could be rhetoric - where all does not mean all - https://detroitcatholic.com/news/ga...mand-joshua-to-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites

In Deut. 7:1-6, 17-26 and 20:10-18. they were to be handed over to destruction.

The commands about how Israel was to conduct themselves in war with the surrounding nations appear in two major passages—Deut. 7:1-6, 17-26 and 20:10-18. The first states that the Canaanites were to be handed over to destruction. The “handing over” reinforces the command that the Israelites were to make no treaties, show no mercy, and not intermarry with the Canaanites. In the second, the law states that Israel was to attack other nations outside the land of Canaan only if they were attacked first. They were to first offer peace, and if the nation refused, they could kill only the adult males, while women, children, animals, and spoils may be taken as plunder.


This is a difficult issue. We do not fully understand why God would command such a thing, but we trust God that He is just – and we recognize that we are incapable of fully understanding a sovereign, infinite, and eternal God

 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
Did God intend to follow through sacrifice of Isaac?

Let me see the Canaanites knew God was with Joshua and they knew that they faced His wrath, why did they remain? Who was the cause of the children and infants being killed? Where they all killed isn't there a remnant that remained. Does all mean all? Apparently, it only means all when it suits the RCC teachings. It could be rhetoric - where all does not mean all - https://detroitcatholic.com/news/ga...mand-joshua-to-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites

In Deut. 7:1-6, 17-26 and 20:10-18. they were to be handed over to destruction.

The commands about how Israel was to conduct themselves in war with the surrounding nations appear in two major passages—Deut. 7:1-6, 17-26 and 20:10-18. The first states that the Canaanites were to be handed over to destruction. The “handing over” reinforces the command that the Israelites were to make no treaties, show no mercy, and not intermarry with the Canaanites. In the second, the law states that Israel was to attack other nations outside the land of Canaan only if they were attacked first. They were to first offer peace, and if the nation refused, they could kill only the adult males, while women, children, animals, and spoils may be taken as plunder.


This is a difficult issue. We do not fully understand why God would command such a thing, but we trust God that He is just – and we recognize that we are incapable of fully understanding a sovereign, infinite, and eternal God

Joshua 5:1
And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, which were on the side of Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, which were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of Israel.

They nations knew that God was with Joshua.
 

mica

Well-known member
I think the problem here is absolutising a commandment even if it harms another person. Jesus said the whole of the Law and prophets was summed up in loving God and loving neighbour. That means that these two commandments take precedence. Jesus showed this in the way he violated sabbath laws (the third/fourth commandment) to save life. Likewise, the law prohibiting stealing doesn't apply when following it directly violates loving God and neighbour. An example might be if someone is destitute and about to starve to death, then they would be justified in stealing from their rich neighbour under certain circumstances. As Aquinas puts it:
...

what sabbath law did Jesus violate?

what are the 3rd and 4th commandments according to the RCC?
 

balshan

Well-known member
...

what sabbath law did Jesus violate?

what are the 3rd and 4th commandments according to the RCC?
none - Mark 2:27

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. They have no faith in God to supply food, there is no need to steal. The story of George Muller shows this, no food on the table but pray the blessing. As they were praying someone came to the door with a meal. No need to steal at all. A man of prayer and not one prayer to Mary or the so called saints.
 

mica

Well-known member
So, basically, anyone who agrees with your position is God's Church even though 99% of apparent believers before the 1700s believed in water baptism.
Those who believe that water baptism saves them... aren't saved. that means they aren't part of His church, His body.

so I have no belief in your %age listed. what was your source that 99% believed water baptism saves? If they're no longer living, they now know that isn't true.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
...

what sabbath law did Jesus violate?

what are the 3rd and 4th commandments according to the RCC?
Well, he did work on a sabbath.

The ten commandments can be listed variously (just as the lists in Exodus and Deuteronomy vary slightly), and you end up with eleven if you don't join one. Catholics join the first and second commandments but separate the last two, whereas Protestants separate the first and second commandments but join the last two.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
none - Mark 2:27

Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
True but Jesus is re-interpreting the Sabbath law. Notice he follows that by saying "the Son of Man has authority over the Sabbath". However, strictly according to the OT laws, he was breaking it (if he wasn't God and thus able to re-interpret it).
They have no faith in God to supply food, there is no need to steal. The story of George Muller shows this, no food on the table but pray the blessing. As they were praying someone came to the door with a meal. No need to steal at all. A man of prayer and not one prayer to Mary or the so called saints.
Ummm so people who have prayed and still starved to death have no faith in God?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Those who believe that water baptism saves them... aren't saved. that means they aren't part of His church, His body.

so I have no belief in your %age listed. what was your source that 99% believed water baptism saves? If they're no longer living, they now know that isn't true.
Well, I would look at the major Christian denominations (even Protestant ones) and for most of history it was believed that water baptism is part of the salvific process. Even Luther (in his catechism) wrote that: "It [baptism] works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."
 

balshan

Well-known member
Well, he did work on a sabbath.

The ten commandments can be listed variously (just as the lists in Exodus and Deuteronomy vary slightly), and you end up with eleven if you don't join one. Catholics join the first and second commandments but separate the last two, whereas Protestants separate the first and second commandments but join the last two.
No He did not break the law at all about Sabbath because the sabbath is made for man and the pharisees knew that truth.
 

balshan

Well-known member
True but Jesus is re-interpreting the Sabbath law. Notice he follows that by saying "the Son of Man has authority over the Sabbath". However, strictly according to the OT laws, he was breaking it (if he wasn't God and thus able to re-interpret it).

Ummm so people who have prayed and still starved to death have no faith in God?
No he isn't because the law even allowed for cattle that might be stuck to be looked after. Well I don't know people's hearts, but apparently you do. I am saying you do not need to steal. They obviously did not steal, so if they had faith do you think they are starving in heaven? I gave one example of what happens when a man of God prays. There are so many more.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
No he isn't because the law even allowed for cattle that might be stuck to be looked after.
Where does it say that in the OT?
Well I don't know people's hearts, but apparently you do.
Then why did you say: "They have no faith in God to supply food, there is no need to steal." That assumes that if someone steals to survive that person has no faith in God.
I am saying you do not need to steal. They obviously did not steal, so if they had faith do you think they are starving in heaven? I gave one example of what happens when a man of God prays. There are so many more.
Sure. But I could give you lots of examples of people who prayed earnest to God and starved to death too. God doesn't promise to save us from death just because we pray.

If the Sabbath law is not violated because it was made for man, how is the law against theft not violated for the same reason?
 

balshan

Well-known member
So, it was okay for someone to work on the Sabbath? The OT Law specifically says otherwise.
It was okay to save a life or the life of an animal. They were even allowed to defend themselves on the sabbath:

After this tragedy, Mattathias the priest and Jewish leader at the time — he was the father of the famous Maccabee brothers — decreed that the Jews could defend themselves on the Sabbath day...

Care for the sick and the sanctity of life has always been a priority in Jewish life. According to an early oral law, probably issued before 70 CE, it was even allowed to extinguish a light (an otherwise prohibited Sabbath act) in order to help an invalid to sleep. It is clear that the physical comfort of the sick was just as important as the process of healing and saving of life.

As is stated in the Mishnah, the earliest post-biblical record of Jewish law: “If any person saves alive a single life, Judaism considers that he has saved the whole world” (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.5).
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
It was okay to save a life or the life of an animal. They were even allowed to defend themselves on the sabbath:

After this tragedy, Mattathias the priest and Jewish leader at the time — he was the father of the famous Maccabee brothers — decreed that the Jews could defend themselves on the Sabbath day...

Care for the sick and the sanctity of life has always been a priority in Jewish life. According to an early oral law, probably issued before 70 CE, it was even allowed to extinguish a light (an otherwise prohibited Sabbath act) in order to help an invalid to sleep. It is clear that the physical comfort of the sick was just as important as the process of healing and saving of life.

As is stated in the Mishnah, the earliest post-biblical record of Jewish law: “If any person saves alive a single life, Judaism considers that he has saved the whole world” (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4.5).
Ahhh so it's okay to obey laws apparently contradictory to scripture if it's from a valid authority? Or, perhaps more precisely, it's okay to have an interpretation that causes tension with scripture because it's from a valid authority?
 
Top