Ask A Catholic IV

[civ2]

Jehoshua
Sorry, if I accidentally said something too harsh.
Now, to the point:
1. Jeremiah 31 FULL

31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Doesn't fit what Christianity is trying to do.
As for the SINS:
You don't seem to read THIS properly.

Sin, Atonement and Salvation

It is important to note that Judaism and Christianity differ on most major theological issues. One of the more obvious issues is the matter of sin, atonement and salvation.

Christian Belief

* Early Christianity latched onto a notion that the messiah was someone who would be the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world.
* Christianity believes that we are born condemned and that without the practice of animal sacrifices Jews cannot atone for their sins.

This represents a blatant misinterpretation of the Jewish Bible.

Jewish standpoint

* The Tanach teaches that sin is an act, not a state of being.
o Mankind was created with an inclination to do evil (Genesis 8:21)
o We have the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7)
o We can choose good over evil (Psalm 37:27, Deut.30:19).

We do not ascribe to the NT (New Testament) concept of the taint of “Original sin” making us intrinsically evil.

* God gave us a way to remove our sins.
o When sacrifices were required they were intended only for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:1) and served as a means of motivating individuals to true repentance.
o Numerous passages, including Hosea 14, I Kings 8:44-52 and Jeremiah 29:12-14, inform us that today, without a Temple or sacrifices, our prayers take the place of sacrifices. In addition, we read:

“The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17)

“I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6).

So, it's all up to a person's will to return to G-d, no need for intermediaries.
2. 3-in-1:
Again:

Jewish standpoint

Judaism maintains that although certain beliefs may be permissible for non-Jews, they are not acceptable for Jews. The Christian theology concerning G-d is one example of a belief that is absolutely forbidden to Jews according to the Hebrew Bible, as the following biblical sources demonstrates:

“Hear O Israel, The Lord our G-d, the Lord is One.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

G-d’s absolute Oneness

The commandment to believe in G-d’s absolute Oneness was given specifically to the children of Israel (the Jewish people).

The concept expressed in this verse (Deuteronomy 6:4) not only refutes the plurality of G-ds, but also asserts that G-d is the only true existence.

Biblically

G-d is not only infinite, but He transcends time, space and matter. G-d has no beginning and no end, as it states:

“I am the first and I am the last and besides Me there is no other.” (Isaiah 44:6)

While Judaism believes that G-d manifests Himself to His creation (humanity) in many ways, (i.e. as a judge or a protector) G-d’s essence itself is indivisible and therefore without any possibility of distinction. Something that transcends both time and space cannot be described as consisting of three different aspects. The moment we attribute any such distinctions to G-d’s essence, we negate His absolute Oneness and unity.

The finger isn't the best example, but anyways, you don't say it IS a human, just a part of him.
And I was referring to the idea that the world is not SEPARATE from G-d, not that it IS G-d.
Maybe a drop in an ocean would be a better example - the same idea anyways.
Also a quote from HERE:

With righteous indignation the missionary argues; “We Christians are not making a man into God, we believe that God became man”. Another argument advanced by the missionary claims that “The Nazarene is the living incarnation of the true God”. The missionary expects these platitudes and others like them to convince the Jew that Christianity is not idolatry. When these nimble aphorisms fail to persuade the Jew, the missionary is smug in the presumption that it is the Jew’s prejudice that prevents him from appreciating the fine nuances of these sophisticated arguments. The missionary is satisfied that the reasoning he presented settled the issue for good and all, and the Jewish charge that belief in the trinity is idolatrous can be dismissed.

The truth is that no argument can justify the faith demanded by the Church. When we consider worship of the Divine the two most important categories are “Creator” and “created”. The One is the only object of worship precisely because He is Creator, and the other is the class from whom worship is required precisely because they are created. The fact that someone is an inhabitant of this earth clearly and unequivocally classifies him as “created”. Do not the scriptures state that God created “heaven and earth and ALL of their hosts”? (Genesis 2:1, Isaiah 45:12, Nehemiah 9:6) The argument that God became man, and as such is deserving of worship is like saying that light became darkness and as such provides illumination. Or hot became cold and as such is what one should look for if they need warmth. The contrast between light and dark shrinks into insignificance when compared to the contrast between Creator and created.

3. It's a dead horse cause you don't have what to say, or why???
As of savior - see above about sin.
As of Messiah:
Criteria:

* First of all, he must be Jewish (Deuteronomy 17:15)
* He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10)
* He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, (2 Samuel 7:12 – 13)
* He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel (Isaiah 11:12)
* He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 37:26 – 27)
* He will rule at a time of world-wide peace (Micah 4:3)
* He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d’s commandments (Ezekiel 37:24)
* He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d (Isaiah 66:23)

Expanded.
1. Ok, he was Jewish. (Funny, how so many people tend to forget THIS too.)
2. Father="Holy Spirit" => Father!="Davidic genealogy" => NOT Messiah.
OR

There are even further problems with any attempts to use the Jewish Scriptures to prove Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph, the husband of Mary (Jesus’ mother).
For the New Testament claims that Joseph was a descendent of King Jeconiah, who in the Hebrew Bible was cursed to never have a descendent “sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:30). Joseph’s genealogy, even if it were transmittable to Jesus, would only serve to further disqualify Jesus as the Messiah.

3. Not yet happened.
4. Not yet happened.
5. Not even funny.
6. As if. (Just look through this forum. )

Any Christian claims that these final criteria will be fulfilled in a “Second Coming” are irrelevant because the concept of the Messiah coming twice has no scriptural basis.
To summarize, we cannot know that someone is the Messiah until he fulfills all of the above criteria.

The Christian understanding of the Messiah and Jesus differs greatly from the Jewish biblical view. These differences developed as a result of the Church’s influence during the time of the Emperor Constantine* and the Council of Nicaea that issued the Nicene Creed in 325 CE.

Emphasis: The Messiah was never meant to be an object of worship. His primary mission and accomplishment is to bring world peace and to fill the world with the knowledge and awareness of one G-d.

Unfortunately, not YET.

We want Moshiach NOW!!!

 

[Arakhor]

Animals constantly violate the natural law.

It can't be much of a law if animals don't pay attention to a human hang-up. Are animals without sin?

 

[Jehoshua]

Jehoshua
Sorry, if I accidentally said something too harsh.
Now, to the point:
1. Jeremiah 31 FULL

Jeremiah is addressing the jews in his letter yes. He is not however excluding others from the new covenant, the quote does not say "I will make this covenant with the people of israel alone" and indeed as we know through Christ, it has been revealed that this new covenant was not only to be with Israel, but with all nations and all the children of God.

As for the SINS:
You don't seem to read THIS properly.

So, it's all up to a person's will to return to G-d, no need for intermediaries.
2. 3-in-1:

Firstly it misrepresents christian teaching, jews can no longer attain clemency through animal sacrifices. the new covenant is binding on all and animal sacrifices are no longer necessary.

secondly I agree with you completely, sin is an act. However that sin, that act leaves an indelible mark on the soul which is why repentance is necessary in order to restore ones state of grace and grow in holiness.

Now in regards to your other quotes. That is a simple description of perfect contrition. God desires a contrite heart and repentance for sins. However human beings being inclined to sin (your quote Gen 8:21 does not invalidate the doctrine of original sin, it is merely an assertion than man is inclined to evil from his youth not that God created man inclined to evil.) find it exceedingly difficult to do such things, and therefore God in his mercy established a means which permits easier access the mercy of God with a mere imperfect contrition, ergo confession.

Again:

The finger isn't the best example, but anyways, you don't say it IS a human, just a part of him.
And I was referring to the idea that the world is not SEPARATE from G-d, not that it IS G-d.
Maybe a drop in an ocean would be a better example - the same idea anyways.
Also a quote from HERE:

Either way the very idea that human beings are a part of God is introducing a far greater plurality into the one God than christianity. Each man has his own person, his intellect, and therefore if human beings are a part of God than God would have a myriad of persons subsumed within the One God, rather than just the three divine persons as proposed in Christianity.

Same if the world is not separate from God. You are introducing plurality into God to a far greater degree than christianity as you are introducing distinct persons and intellects into the one God. Not to mention that unlike the christian trinity those persons within the world whom you say are a part of God act independently from each other, which is rather different from the idea that God is one, with one will.

furthermore the final quotes in this section are incompatible with the idea of the omnipotence of God. By saying it is impossible for the uncreated God to incarnate as man you are denying that God can do anything which of course is to imply he is not really God.

3. It's a dead horse cause you don't have what to say, or why???
As of savior - see above about sin.
As of Messiah:
Criteria:

Expanded.
1. Ok, he was Jewish. (Funny, how so many people tend to forget THIS too.)
2. Father="Holy Spirit" => Father!="Davidic genealogy" => NOT Messiah.
OR

3. Not yet happened.
4. Not yet happened.
5. Not even funny.
6. As if. (Just look through this forum. )

Unfortunately, not YET.

We want Moshiach NOW!!!

It is a dead horse because the arguments, counter arguments and so forth are well established.

so for example

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/messianic_prophecies.html

I bring your attention to Isaiah 7:14 in particular which invalidates the jewish argument that Jesus is not the messiah due to the virgin birth. Scripture tells you (and scripture you accept) that the messiah will be born from a virgin.

furthermore most of the quotes you refer to do indeed apply to Christ at his second coming at the end of the age.

 

[civ2]

Jehoshua
You're so funny sometimes.
As of Isaiah 7:14
Read this

14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: He will give you a sign by Himself, against Your will.
is with child: This is actually the future, as we find concerning Manoah’s wife, that the angel said to her (Judges 13:3): “And you shall conceive and bear a son,” and it is written, “Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son.”
the young woman: My wife will conceive this year. This was the fourth year of Ahaz.
and she shall call his name: Divine inspiration will rest upon her.
Immanuel: [lit. God is with us. That is] to say that our Rock shall be with us, and this is the sign, for she is a young girl, and she never prophesied, yet in this instance, Divine inspiration shall rest upon her. This is what is stated below (8:3): “And I was intimate with the prophetess, etc.,” and we do not find a prophet’s wife called a prophetess unless she prophesied. Some interpret this as being said about Hezekiah, but it is impossible, because, when you count his years, you find that Hezekiah was born nine years before his father’s reign. And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl and incapable of giving birth.

Ahaz

Ahaz was twenty when he became king of Judah and reigned for sixteen years. His reign commenced in the seventeenth year of the reign of Pekah of Israel. Edwin Thiele concluded that Ahaz was coregent with Jotham from 736/735 BC, and that his sole reign began in 732/731 and ended in 716/715 BC. William F. Albright has dated his reign to 735 – 715 BC.

OH, AND MY LINK, WHICH YOU STILL IGNORE!

Isaiah 7 1-16

In context, we understand that the King of Judah, Ahaz, is in mortal fear of two armies – Aram and the Kingdom of Israel who have attacked. In order to placate his fears, God through His prophet Isaiah, reassures him that he and his kingdom will be safe. The sign of this will be that a woman (obviously known to Ahaz) will bear a child. The essence of this sign was that within a few years (the time the child will be able to discern between good and evil), Ahaz would experience the salvation from Above and be spared. If this passage was predicting the birth of Jesus, who lived 700 years after Ahaz, it makes little sense for God to comfort the poor King with tidings of his birth.

Well, if this doesn't prove my point about blind stubbornness...

Back to the "world inside G-d, yet G-d is One".
It's very simple - G-d creates the world not much differently how you "create" your finger - it has a separate name and is considered an entity, though really it's still fully a part of your body.
Very similarly, world is "in G-d", yet doesn't "add" to Him, cause it never changed anything in G-d Himself.
I'll look for specific texts on this, can't find now.

Repentance:

Numerous passages, including Hosea 14, I Kings 8:44-52 and Jeremiah 29:12-14, inform us that today, without a Temple or sacrifices, our prayers take the place of sacrifices. In addition, we read:

“The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17)

“I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6).

How can you miss the point is beyond me.

Stop ignoring my links

The third, fourth, fifth and sixth criteria have obviously not been fulfilled, either during Jesus’ time or since. Any Christian claims that these final criteria will be fulfilled in a “Second Coming” are irrelevant because the concept of the Messiah coming twice has no scriptural basis.
To summarize, we cannot know that someone is the Messiah until he fulfills all of the above criteria.

Or bring a JEWISH scripture that mentions any second coming.
(Cause if all you can bring, is "Christianity is self-sufficient" without any back up from JEWISH sources, then I can make up my own "religion", based on nothing but my daydreaming, and say it's "the word of G-d" too. )

 

[civ_king]

what Lone Wolf said , not to mention they might not even bring the issue of the two dogs up.

I'm quite sure they will knowing them, any ideas on how to prove it irrelevant? Should I go with a "gay marriage is about marriage not gay people" tactic?

 

[Jehoshua]

I post replies to what you say, not to articles which you link me, despite the fact certain problems exists within those articles I could address.

-

in response to Ahaz, your quotation says that it would be little comfort to Ahaz if it was a prophesisation about the birth of Christ. But Ahaz did not ask for a sign, and so God punished him and at the same time gave a sign to the jewish peoiple and revealed that despite their Kings lack of faith in God, God in his time would come rescue his people.

-

in response to your thing on your panentheism

-

Your argument is logically flawed, since my finger is not an entity. For it to be an entity it would have to have a distinct will, which of course it doesn't. Human beings of the other hand have a will and intellect, and are distinct persons, and thus for them to be as you say a part of God is to introduce independent autonomous wills and a vast mutitude of conflicting personages into the one God. This is similar to hinduism with its billions of gods, human souls and so forth with all their conflicts and strifes is a part of Brahman, an ultimate reality.

Also I note you completely ignored with what I said about sin, and about contrition. God indeed desires a contrite heart, however the heart must be perfectly contrite and truly repentant (without attachment to the sin). Since this is difficult God established means to impart his grace in a more accesible way. Furthermore you are completely correct in saying God does not want sacrifices but kindness. The great commandment of Christ is "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, all thy strength and all thy mind, and love thy neighbour as thyself". Furthermore God clearly doesn;t want sacrifices since he has himself made the grand expiatory oblation on the cross.

-

On the second coming. God gives revelation when he will and in his own terms. Christ came and it was revealed that the messiah would come again and that salvation history would find its conclusion at his coming. It is a matter of divine revelation. (which jews don't accept). I also note on your assertion that so long as it doesn;t agree with what you believe is revelation, it is wrong, is ultimately flawed. Ever have the jewish people rejected the prophets in their lifetimes, the bible itself shows that the jews have ever been disobedient to God, your people even after seeing the majesty of God numerous times before and at sinai rejected him soon thereafter and made the golden calf! And back on the prophets, your argument statement could easily have applied to them at their times (and indeed many of the jews rejected them ), afterall they merely made up what they said from daydreams did they not, they did not use human reasoning, they used divine revelation. You only say their prophecies and words are not daydreams because you now accept what they said in retrospection. The one difference between their revelations and the revelations in the new testament and of Christ are that you don't accept their validity.

 

[Jehoshua]

I'm quite sure they will knowing them, any ideas on how to prove it irrelevant? Should I go with a "gay marriage is about marriage not gay people" tactic?

Well the whole argument for gay marriage is predicated on the assumption that it is actually marriage. We full know that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that to say a union of two people of the same sex is marriage is a fundamental redefinition of what is a legal and social institution.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, who was Jacob married to?

 

[civ2]

EM
As if you don't know: Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah.
And if you ask about them being sisters, there are clear answers to that:
1. It was before Sinai, and it wasn't forbidden.
2. More over, he had promissed Rachel to marry her, and this promise was binding as a part of a "Noahide" behavior, whereas not marrying 2 sisters was a "Jewish" commandment, which wasn't then yet in full effect.

Jehoshua
False prophets

Verse 1: Everything that I am commanding you--- be careful to fulfill it; do not add to it and do not subtract from it.

Verse 2: If a prophet arises among you or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you an omen or a miracle,

Verse 3: And the omen or the miracle happens--- the one he told you about---saying, "Let us go after other gods, that you do not know, and let us serve them."

Verse 4: Do not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, because Ad-noy, your G-d, is testing you to know whether you love Ad-noy, your G-d, wholeheartedly and with your entire beings.

Verse 5: After Ad-noy, your G-d, are you to go, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, serve Him, and cleave to Him.

Which means:
1. Torah was given WHOLE to Moses at (or also during his lifetime after) Sinai, both Written AND Oral.
This alone negates any "new" additions, not to mention CONTRADICTIONS.
2. Miracles prove NOTHING - and there were countless Jewish sages who did bigger or smaller miracles without even being called prophets.
3. False prophets lead to false gods.
Or false interpretations.
4. We had ample tests through the ages, many of which were very upsetting.
5. Keep His commandments!
Aka the TORAH!
...
You missed the point about Ahaz, but whatever.
...
Repentance is also an ACTION, or more like a continuous positive conduct.
It's not enough to FEEL something, you must DO.
...
As of how all is part of G-d:
Everything is created "something from nothing", thus needs a constant "renewal" in order not to revert to "nothing".
We think we see things (world as a thing too), cause we fail to see the Divine power that brings it from "nothing into something", therefore nothing can be considered "existing" - except G-d Himself.
...
About revelations:
See the part about false prophets.
Also, "Torah isn't in Heavens" to rely on prophesy in Law questions.
Read this story from Talmud, which shows that even open miracles aren't paid attention when clarifying Torah Law.
So, again, no "new revelations" would nor could negate the previous Torah.

Good luck and take heed.

 

[Arakhor]

This is "Ask a Catholic". My question about whether animals are intrinsically without sin or not was not answered.

 

[NBAfan]

This is "Ask a Catholic". My question about whether animals are intrinsically without sin or not was not answered.

Animals can't sin because they don't have intellects.

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe you can answer! Why were billions of animals forced into brutal deaths for tens of millions of years before humans arrived? Who's responsible for that?

 

[Takhisis]

Animals don't have souls, they do have minds, NBAfan.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Animals do have souls, by definition. Animal comes from the Latin Animale, an adjective derived from Anima or Animus, both of which may be translated as soul. (Anima refers to soul as the vital principle and innermost essence that gives something life and an identity, whereas Animus refers to the rational soul, consciousness, will, passions, etc.)

 

[NBAfan]

Animals don't have souls, they do have minds, NBAfan.

If you mean brain, then yes. The intellect is what can reason which animals obviously don't have.

 

[Takhisis]

Animals do have souls, by definition. Animal comes from the Latin Animale, an adjective derived from Anima or Animus, both of which may be translated as soul. (Anima refers to soul as the vital principle and innermost essence that gives something life and an identity, whereas Animus refers to the rational soul, consciousness, will, passions, etc.)

Er, no, just no.

If you mean brain, then yes. The intellect is what can reason which animals obviously don't have.

Do you think an animal can't reason? Please. Humans are animals, you know.

 

[NBAfan]

Do you think an animal can't reason? Please. Humans are animals, you know.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Animals don't have the ability to think outside of their emotions.

 

[Takhisis]

No, I'm not trolling, but please define 'thought'.

 

[_random_]

Er, no, just no.

Well, according to my recollection of a kids' show I saw on EWTN, animals do have souls, but only humans have immortal souls, so I imagine official Catholic teaching is something similar to this.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The bible uses the same words for soul whether referring to humans or lesser animals, in both testaments and in both Hebrew and Greek if I remember correctly.

I know that when Genesis 2:7 (which in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible is rendered "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.") uses the Hebrew term Nephesh, which is also used in Genesis 1:20 to refer to all the creatures of the sea and land.


Scripture never uses any word for immortal to describe any word for soul. (The closest it comes is saying that through Christ we can "guard our soul into the [next] age," guaranteeing our place with Christ into eternity after the bodily resurrection when "the mortal shall have put on immortality.") Christian Mortalism fits well with a sola scriptura interpretation of the bible, but is contrary to the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church and considered a serious heresy.