My Five Year Plan

My Five Year Plan - When I first started reading the Bible, I thought that it might be nice if someone listed the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law and gave the rationale as to whether each is binding on Christians. I finally decided to take on the task myself. However, at the rate that I'm going, this will take me about five years. For more background on this blog, click here. If you take issue with any conclusions please post them. I'll be happy to engage in cordial discourse. ...Finally, if you are here for the first time, it's probably best to scroll down and read the posts in chronological order. The archive is to the right.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

40. Do not say anything in the idolater's defense

The 40th commandment of Mosaic Law is to not say anything in the idolater's defense

Where in scripture?
Deuteronomy 13:9
Do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him.

According to Chabad.org, "For the person whom a mesit tried to convince not to advance any arguments on behalf of the mesit, as [Deuteronomy 13:9] states: "Do not have pity... [upon him]."

New Testament References
Matthew 22:39
…You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Romans 13:8-10
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

As Christians, we are called upon to love the sinner, but hate the sin.

St. Augustine
“With love for mankind and hatred of sins.”

Conclusion
Not binding on Christians 

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

39. Do not save the idolater

The 39th commandment of Mosaic Law is to not save the idolater

Where in scripture?
Deuteronomy 13:9
Do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him.

According to Mitzvah a Day, "One may not rescue somebody who incites others to idol worship, even if the inciter's life is in danger."

According to Chabad.org, the law is to "Not to [try to] save a mesit, but rather to see to it that he is executed."

New Testament References
Matthew 22:39
…You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Romans 13:8-10
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

As Christians, we are called upon to love the sinner, but hate the sin.

St. Augustine
“With love for mankind and hatred of sins.”

Conclusion
Not binding on Christians 

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

38. Do not cease hating the idolater

I apologize to visitors for my prolonged case of writers' block.

The 38th commandment of Mosaic Law is to not cease hating the idolater

As you recall, the 37th commandment of Mosaic Law is to not love the idolater. The 38th commandment adds a bit of emphasis.

Where in scripture?
Deuteronomy 13:9
Do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him.

According to Mitzvah a Day, "One may not stop hating a person who entices others to worship idols."

According to Chabad.org, "The Torah wants us to understand that the only way to ensure that the Maysit will not be able to convince others to worship idols is to show that we do not love him and that we do, indeed, hate him."

New Testament References
Matthew 22:39
…You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Romans 13:8-10
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

As Christians, we are called upon to love the sinner, but hate the sin.

St. Augustine
“With love for mankind and hatred of sins.”

Conclusion
Not binding on Christians 

Sunday, February 20, 2011

NBC Television

I was just watching a show on NBC, which aired in prime time and showed the highlights of Saturday Night Live.

With all the highlights they showed the clip of Sinead O'Connor ripping up a photo of Pope John Paul II.

Lorne Michaels distanced himself from her actions and called them a betrayal.

..Yet they aired it - again - as a highlight.

Seems as if they are trying to be offensive, yet don't want to live with the repercussions.

Instead they managed to be offensive and gutless.

Friday, February 4, 2011

My email from USAction/True Majority

Don't let them smear Planned Parenthood

Dear Kirk,

Sign our petition to defend Planned Parenthood from false attacks.

The right wing smear machine that took down Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones and ACORN is at it again, and this time the target is Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of health care to low income women.

The attack is as deceitful as it is dangerous to our democracy -- dangerous because some conservatives in Congress are all too willing to use this manufactured controversy as a political tool to roll back women’s rights.

Please take a moment and sign this petition and let Congress know that we won’t stand by and let an organization dedicated to helping women be falsely smeared for political purposes. 

Here’s the skinny: On Tuesday an extremist, anti-choice group released an obviously edited and distortion-filled video of their “undercover” visit to a New Jersey clinic. They claim the video shows Planned Parenthood employees helping cover up an underage sex trafficking operation.

Yeah, that’s right. Planned Parenthood, a leader not only in women’s health but in women’s rights, is being falsely accused of helping hide a criminal sex trafficking ring.

“Sick” and “deplorable” are two words that come to mind, but “absurd” probably fits it best when you see the heavily edited video and hear the truth, which is that Planned Parenthood had already called the U.S. Attorney General’s office about visits to 12 clinics nationwide by a man purporting to be a sex trafficker. The man was asking for information on health services for his sex workers, including some that he said were minors illegally in the U.S.

In reality there is no sex trafficking ring. The visits were made by radical right-wingers who wanted to get Planned Parenthood workers on videotape, so they could edit and distort their words to paint a patently false picture. Now this video is circulating through the media, enabling right-wing talking heads and Congress members to use it as a political weapon.

We need to stand up and loudly defend Planned Parenthood from these attacks. Otherwise, the radical right could get its wish -- cutting off funding and weakening family planning services and reproductive health care for women.
Darcy Scott Martin
USAction/True Majority
==========
If True Majority truly wants to represent the majority, it should rethink its position on Planned Parenthood. The majority of people in the United States opposes abortion. According to Gallup.com, 51% of Americans call themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice."

According to Planned Parenthood, government funding accounts for about 17 percent of its budget, with most of that coming from the federal government.


It’s time to stop wasting our tax dollars on this reprehensible organization. 


Check out the video yourself and see whether you think that it’s a smear campaign or whether there were some serious problems with the conduct of the Planned Parenthood employee.


By the way, despite True Majority’s claim that this is merely a fabrication, Planned Parenthood has fired the employee.



Saturday, January 29, 2011

Terms I don’t like – Apocrypha (when referring to the Deuterocanonical Books)

Terms I don’t like – Apocrypha (when referring to the Deuterocanonical Books)

Protestants of the last couple of centuries tend to reject what they call the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon), while Catholics accept it as being divinely inspired. This distinction is important because the acceptance of the Deuterocanon as being canonical pretty much necessitates belief in Purgatory and intercessory prayer.

In what may seem to be a nonsequitor, I’d like to point out that the word “prodigal,” as used in the prodigal son, means wasteful. However, if you ask most people what prodigal means, they would incorrectly tell you that it means wayward.

I bring this up because the term “Apocrypha” has also taken on new meanings over the centuries. Before Luther, the Catholic Church itself used the term Apocrypha, because the word had the Greek meaning of the “hidden books.”

Since Luther, however, the word has taken on the meaning of spurious. Catholics now use the term Deuterocanon or Deuterocanonical Books. To Catholics Apocrypha is a loaded term. For Catholics the Apocrypha refers to the gnostic gospels, etc.

Luther wasn’t the first person to reject the Deuterocanonical Books. Marcion of Sinope was Luther’s forerunner. He believed that none of the Old Testament belonged in the Bible. He also rejected Matthew, Mark, and John, along with parts of Luke.  

Luther wanted to eliminate the books of James, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical Books from his Canon of Scripture. Fortunately, he was talked out of it, but when he published a translation of the Bible where he regrouped the Old Testament so that it had a special section in the back called the Apocrypha.

Luther did so for two reasons. The first was that James, Revelation, and the Deuterocanonical Books did not conform to his theology. The second was that European Jews of the 1500s (Luther’s time) did not accept the Deuterocanonical Books as a part of their Bible. He felt that this compromised the legitimacy of the books. This second point is very important and I’ll get back to it in a few moments.

Initially all Protestant Bibles included the Deuterocanonical Books. The King James Version contained the Deuterocanon with cross references from the Protocanon in the margins. In 1615, in England, the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury imposed a year’s imprisonment as penalty for publishing Bibles without the Deuterocanonical Books. It wasn’t until 1827 when the British Foreign Bible Society decided to drop the Deuterocanonical Books from the Bible. Some sources state that the decision was made to save on the cost of paper. Other sources state that it was due to pervasive anti-Catholicism in England (Most people don’t know that to this day it is still illegal for the British monarch to marry a Catholic.)

The Jewish Canon
As noted above, Luther rejected the Deuterocanonical Books because most European Jews during his time did not accept them. However, Jews during the time of Jesus did accept them.

During the time of Jesus, there wasn’t a defined Canon. According to Wikipedia, Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine, or common, Greek in the 3rd century BCE. Koine Greek was a universal language that was spoken throughout the Roman Empire. The translation process took several years and became known as the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX included the Deuterocanonical Books. Both Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to the LXX.

Wikipedia says “the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.”

Not only did the New Testament writers favor the LXX over the Hebrew Scriptures; they included a boatload of references to the Deuterocanonical Books as documented by this guy.

One good example of a New Testament reference to the Deuterocanon is Hebrews 11:35, which discusses the heroes of the Old Testament.
Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.

This is a clear reference to 2 Maccabees 7, which is even acknowledged by Barnes Notes on the Bible, a respected Protestant resource. The passage from Maccabees is the only example in scripture of someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. When the verse from Hebrews is read in context, it would be difficult to claim that Paul didn’t consider Maccabees (and thus prayer for the dead) as being on the same level as the rest of the Old Testament.

The weight of evidence strongly suggests that the writers of the Bible believed that the Septuagint was scripture. We are instructed by 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired. Adherents of Sola Scriptura must accept the Deuterocanonical Books based upon this verse.

When we learn why some Jews after the time of Jesus came to reject the Deuterocanonical Books, it should cause us to embrace the books all the more.

In “Why Catholic Bibles are bigger,” Gary Michuta explains that during the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132-135) Christians were still considered a Jewish sect. Christians were pressured by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph to renounce Jesus, join the revolt, and accept Bar Cochba as the Messiah. Of course, Christians refused this apostasy and were treated by Jews as heretics and traitors.

According to Wikipedia, the Council of Jamnia was headed by the Rabbi and it addressed “the loss of the national language, the growing problem of conversions to Christianity, based in part on Christian promises of life after death. What emerged from this era was twofold: A rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament… and the inclusion of a curse on the "Minim" which probably included Jewish Christians.”

(A few years ago I looked at the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the Council of Jamnia and it acknowledged that participants of the Council did indeed curse Christians. (The entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia is acknowledged in the Wikipedia article) In preparing this post, I referred to the Jewish Encyclopedia again, but interestingly the article on Jamnia has been removed – unless I goofed and didn’t see it.)

The Council, which was made up of survivors of the Pharisees, was not enamored with Christianity. It especially disproved of the Gentile Christians, who primarily spoke Greek. When the Council specified that it wanted to purify Judaism of Greek influences it was saying that it wanted to purify Judaism of Christianity. The formerly accepted Deuterocanon suddenly fell into disrespect because it was highly favored by Christians, who believed that it pointed toward Christ, and it was written in Greek.

The Council banned any scripture that wasn’t written in Hebrew. Ironically the Dead Sea Scrolls subsequently demonstrated that at least some of the Deuterocanonical Books were, in fact, written in Hebrew. (Note that the Hebrew language might not have been the only sacred language used by the Israelites. There is some evidence that the Ge'ez language was also used in ancient times.

According to Wikipedia, “Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.”

Luther based his decision to exclude the Deuterocanon based, in part, on the decision of a Council that cursed Christ and Christians, and whose purpose was to combat Christianity.

One final note about the Council - We know that at the time of Christ there were a variety of Jewish sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, and others, all with theological disagreements. According to Michuta, “Judaism was comprised of as many as twenty-four distinct parties...and each...had its own distinctive theology and preferences in matters of canonicity (p. 13).” The Council represented only one sect. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia, for example accepted the Deuterocanonical Books through modern times.

Christianity’s acceptance of the Deuterocanonical Books
Catholic Answers documents Christianity’s acceptance of the Deuterocanonical Books as being scripture as far back as Apostolic times. A similar reference is on EWTN. Documents citing the Deuterocanonical Books as being scripture include:

·                     The Didache (A.D. 70);
·                     The Letter of Barnabas(A.D. 74);
·                     Clement of Rome (A.D. 80);
·                     Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 135);
·                     St. Irenaeus (A.D. 189);
·                     Hippolytus (A.D. 204);
·                     Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 248);
·                     Council of Rome (A.D. 382);
·                     Council of Hippo (A.D. 393);
·                     Council of Carthage III (A.D. 397);
·                     St. Augustine (A.D. 397);
·                     The Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 400);
·                     St. Jerome (A.D. 401); and
·                     Pope Innocent I (A.D. 408).

Protestants sometimes cite three sources in claiming that the Deuterocanonical Books weren’t used by early Christians. These are St. Jerome, Athanasius, and Origin.

·         While Jerome originally was dubious about the Deuterocanon, he changed his mind. He included them in the Vulgate. He referred to Sirach as being scripture: “Does not the Scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [Sirach 13:2] “ (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108, in NPNF2, VI:207)

St. Jerome also said: “What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

·         Athanasius accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39).

·         Origin accepted all of the Deuterocanonical Books; he simply recommended not using them in apologetics with Jews.

I certainly concede that there was hesitation by some to accept the Deuterocanonical Books. However, there was significantly less controversy in their acceptance than there was in establishing the canon of the New Testament.

Though most Protestants nowadays reject the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical Books by the Councils at Hippo and Carthage, it was those very same early Church councils that are cited by Protestants as being guided by the Holy Spirit for establishing the canon of the New Testament. 

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Religious Ecstasy - Pt. 3

Praying for Signs, Visions, or Miracles

According to St. John of the Cross, in his book Ascent of Mount Carmel, although our prayers for signs (as in "Lord, give me a sign!"), visions, or miracles are occasionally granted; we should not pray for such things.

God has laid down rational and natural limits for man's governance. To desire to pass beyond them is not lawful, and to desire or seek out anything by supernatural means is to go beyond these limits and is not pleasing to God

God occasionally grants petitions for signs or miracles to affirm weak souls by granting them favors. However, this is not because He desires us to commune with Him in that manner or by those methods; it is that He gives everyone certain grace in the manner best suited to each individual.

Though God may answer such requests, they are not pleasing to him because they demonstrate a lack of faith.  It is unnecessary to pray for signs or visions since the Holy Spirit has already provided us with the Gospel and it is sufficient for all guidance. In all our needs, trials, and difficulties, there is no better or surer answer than prayer, trust, obedience, and hope.

According to St. John of the Cross, it is not lawful under the New Covenant (or the Law of Grace as St. John of the Cross calls it) to ask anything of God by supernatural means, as it was under Mosaic Law.

Under the Old Covenant, such communion with God was not only lawful, but it was also necessary because at that time faith had no firm foundation and many of the books of the Bible had not yet been written.

During Biblical times, every time God spoke, He revealed the mysteries of our faith and the things leading to it.

But at the moment when Christ was dying on the Cross and said "It is finished," an end was made to the ceremonies and rites of Mosaic Law (except those specifically affirmed by scripture and Sacred Tradition).

Now that faith is founded in Christ, and the law of the Gospel has been made manifest, there is no reason to enquire of Him in that manner, nor for Him to speak or to answer as He did in former times. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. John of the Cross on this matter.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

There will be no further Revelation

According to St. John of the Cross, whoever desires to receive anything in a supernatural manner is finding fault with God for not having given us a complete sufficiency in His Son. If we leave the path given to us, we are not only guilty of curiosity, but of great audacity.

Furthermore, even under Mosaic Law it was not lawful for everyone to enquire of God. He did not answer all men, but only the priests and prophets. It was from their mouths that the people learned Mosaic Law and its correct interpretations. If a man desired to know anything of God, he asked a prophet or a priest and not God Himself. It was the prophets and of the priests who determined whether signs, visions, or miracles came from God.

It is not proper for us to pray for signs, visions, or miracles. For one thing, we may be conditioning our faith, on receiving such miracles.

Luke 4:12
Jesus said to him in reply, "It also says, 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'"

Secondly, signs and visions can just as easily come from Satan, putting the one who prays into grave peril, presumption, and sins that spring from pride.

According to St. John of the Cross, "To desire to commune with God by such means is a most perilous thing, more so than I can express, and that one who is affectioned to such methods will not fail to err greatly and will often find himself in confusion.

This is not to say that God no longer speaks to us. For instance, the miracle of Fatima clearly predicted the course of the twentieth century.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

According to St. John of the Cross, God desires not that any man by himself alone should believe his experiences to be of God, or should act in conformity with them, or rely upon them, but rather should believe the Church and her ministers.