"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5
While being born of the Spirit is pretty clear, I've heard the argument before that Jesus is only referring to one's physical birth when he speaks of "water" or amniotic fluid, so to speak. The point of said argument being to somehow cheapen baptism as a necessity for Salvation. Personally, I see three issues with this Baptism avoiding interpretation.
Issue #1 Per Christ's teaching, Baptism is of Water and The Spirit.
Looking back at the general context of John, a mere two chapters earlier Jesus, Himself, was baptized. Jesus, Himself, did not start His public ministry until he had been baptized. However, what is key to note is that the Holy Spirit was there when Jesus was baptized. The description of John the baptist reveals an immediate collusion of Baptism with the Holy Spirit. "And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him." John 1:32 This wording is nearly the same in all four of the Gospels. See Mark 1:10, Matthew 3:16, and Luke 3:22 for the others. Essentially, when John speaks of one who will come to baptize with the Spirit, he speaks of baptism not to the exclusion of water but with it. Though, just to be clear, baptism is not the only place for the Spirit to act.
Issue #2 Grammatical Context
I am taking people at their word for this, but apparently in Greek the word format is such that you could not rephrase the sentence to say "Unless you are born of Water and Unless you are born of The Spirit". The wording is such that the words "Water" and "Spirit" are locked under the heading of a singular event. That is to say that the singular event referred to (Baptism) comprises two parts simultaneously occurring and not two events at separate times of life.
Issue #3 Context
The most compelling argument for me is this; "After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized." John 3:22 Think about it for a moment and then go back and re-read John 3. Right after having a talk with Nicodemus on water and The Spirit, Jesus goes off and spends time baptizing. Coincidence? I think not. He was definitely trying to let us know something.
Go and set the World on Fire
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
10 Commandments
First of all, Trivial Argument Alert:
I've been told that we Catholics have the numbering of the 10 commandments wrong. So, I've been trying to look back and understand why the split in numbering.
First of all, the data for the 10 Commandments is found in Exodus 20: 1-17. Looking at that in my NRSV and RSV Bibles, I see the verses set off into 10 neat paragraphs that match up with the protestant numbering. I am, of course, mildly taken aback by this and found myself wondering what was the Catholic logic behind this difference. Most issues between Catholics and Protestants seem to drop into semantics so I wonder if it is somehow present because of things "lost in translation". Though unconfirmed, I have a hunch that Hebrew is mainly not written with paragraph type separations, but that our modern conventions in English have tacked that on. *pauses and does some looking* No, apparently that is not the case, Hebrew seems to have paragraph-like separations.
In looking at the data, something occurred to me that I was surprised about. I was wondering where we got the term "ten commandments" from. I mean, I had presumed it's biblical origin while at the same time not knowing where. A quick search at blueletterbible.com yielded three locations Exd 34:28B, Deu 4:13, and Deu 10:4.
Location 1: Exodus 34:28B reads: ... And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Location 2: Deu 4:13 reads: And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Location 3: Deu 10:4 reads: And he wrote on the tables, as at the first writing, the ten commandments which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them to me.
I was intrigued to note that the Hebrew words use the same root form "dabar" for both words and commandments (the bold words above). The implications of the usage of the word "word" for commandments depends entirely on how Hebraic traditions perceived "words" within the 10 commandments. Since I really don't know any Hebrew though my investigation must stop here short of major speculations.
Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention one thing: The 10 commandments other name is the Decaloque or literally "10 words". There might be more to this.
New information: The Ten Commandments are iterated in two places in the OT: Exodus and Deut 5:6-21. I invite you to take a look at the split of the paragraphs here. There are 11 paragraphs. The what would have been #10 in Exodus is split into two parts here. This means that at the very least the splitting of the last two commands is at the very least Biblical in origin. The discrepancies in the numbering seems to stem from the confusion of the two different iterations of the Ten Commandments.
Now to take a look at the different origins of the different forms of the Ten Commandments. After spending some time searching now, the only link that I found that had a detailed amount of information to say on this topic is: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NUMBERNG.HTM by James Akin, a Catholic Apologist. His presentation of the data is most succinct and I would recommend that you read his article in it's entirety unlike me who only ran across it once.
However, because I don't expect anyone to really look at that link in it's entirety. I will state as best as I can the most compelling argument for me as to the difference between the two organizations of the 10 commandments.
The Ten Commandments have a different format because St. Augustine(350-430) reorganized them for memorization by the youth. This does not mean that we read Exodus and Deuteronomy's accounts of the Ten Commandments in Augustine's format. Rather, we use the un-numbered scripture un-altered, but use the "normal" Catholic format for memorization purposes. We use both. Which is better do you think? I say neither, they both have their purpose and role that is all.
Also, I would like to point out that St. Augustine's organization of the Ten Commandments occurred around the same time as the Canon of Scripture was decided upon.
The last objection I would like to try and answer is that the Catholic Church omits the second commandment. This obviously is not the case. Catholic's believe that the point of the first commandment is that "You shall have no other God's before Me" and that the following paragraph was a further emphasis for the superior hierarchical value of the first commandment. Biblically speaking because of the numerous Holy examples of "graven images" in the OT such as the Golden Serpent, the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon's Temple the 2nd Commandment must have had a specific implication. I believe the specific "word"(dabar) was that you shall make no idols and that what follows is a description not of things that are idols but forms that an idol may take but doesn't necessarily take. Obviously the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant are a "form of" something that "is in heaven above" which would then make God a contradictory being. I would propose however that it is not God who is contradictory (because Truth never contradicts Himself) but us. We must align ourselves to God.
One last note: It is important for me to state here that the Catholic Church's order for the Ten Commandments is not set in stone. The Ten Commandments in the format that has Protestants protesting is mainly a memorization tool and not a dogmatic tradition, though a useful tradition none-the-less. For further reading see the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm In other words, the emphasis is on the spirit and the meaning of the Ten Commandments and not on having to know the exact wording (though that can hardly be thought of as harmful).
Now, Go and Set the World on Fire
I've been told that we Catholics have the numbering of the 10 commandments wrong. So, I've been trying to look back and understand why the split in numbering.
First of all, the data for the 10 Commandments is found in Exodus 20: 1-17. Looking at that in my NRSV and RSV Bibles, I see the verses set off into 10 neat paragraphs that match up with the protestant numbering. I am, of course, mildly taken aback by this and found myself wondering what was the Catholic logic behind this difference. Most issues between Catholics and Protestants seem to drop into semantics so I wonder if it is somehow present because of things "lost in translation". Though unconfirmed, I have a hunch that Hebrew is mainly not written with paragraph type separations, but that our modern conventions in English have tacked that on. *pauses and does some looking* No, apparently that is not the case, Hebrew seems to have paragraph-like separations.
In looking at the data, something occurred to me that I was surprised about. I was wondering where we got the term "ten commandments" from. I mean, I had presumed it's biblical origin while at the same time not knowing where. A quick search at blueletterbible.com yielded three locations Exd 34:28B, Deu 4:13, and Deu 10:4.
Location 1: Exodus 34:28B reads: ... And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Location 2: Deu 4:13 reads: And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Location 3: Deu 10:4 reads: And he wrote on the tables, as at the first writing, the ten commandments which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them to me.
I was intrigued to note that the Hebrew words use the same root form "dabar" for both words and commandments (the bold words above). The implications of the usage of the word "word" for commandments depends entirely on how Hebraic traditions perceived "words" within the 10 commandments. Since I really don't know any Hebrew though my investigation must stop here short of major speculations.
Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention one thing: The 10 commandments other name is the Decaloque or literally "10 words". There might be more to this.
New information: The Ten Commandments are iterated in two places in the OT: Exodus and Deut 5:6-21. I invite you to take a look at the split of the paragraphs here. There are 11 paragraphs. The what would have been #10 in Exodus is split into two parts here. This means that at the very least the splitting of the last two commands is at the very least Biblical in origin. The discrepancies in the numbering seems to stem from the confusion of the two different iterations of the Ten Commandments.
Now to take a look at the different origins of the different forms of the Ten Commandments. After spending some time searching now, the only link that I found that had a detailed amount of information to say on this topic is: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NUMBERNG.HTM by James Akin, a Catholic Apologist. His presentation of the data is most succinct and I would recommend that you read his article in it's entirety unlike me who only ran across it once.
However, because I don't expect anyone to really look at that link in it's entirety. I will state as best as I can the most compelling argument for me as to the difference between the two organizations of the 10 commandments.
The Ten Commandments have a different format because St. Augustine(350-430) reorganized them for memorization by the youth. This does not mean that we read Exodus and Deuteronomy's accounts of the Ten Commandments in Augustine's format. Rather, we use the un-numbered scripture un-altered, but use the "normal" Catholic format for memorization purposes. We use both. Which is better do you think? I say neither, they both have their purpose and role that is all.
Also, I would like to point out that St. Augustine's organization of the Ten Commandments occurred around the same time as the Canon of Scripture was decided upon.
The last objection I would like to try and answer is that the Catholic Church omits the second commandment. This obviously is not the case. Catholic's believe that the point of the first commandment is that "You shall have no other God's before Me" and that the following paragraph was a further emphasis for the superior hierarchical value of the first commandment. Biblically speaking because of the numerous Holy examples of "graven images" in the OT such as the Golden Serpent, the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon's Temple the 2nd Commandment must have had a specific implication. I believe the specific "word"(dabar) was that you shall make no idols and that what follows is a description not of things that are idols but forms that an idol may take but doesn't necessarily take. Obviously the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant are a "form of" something that "is in heaven above" which would then make God a contradictory being. I would propose however that it is not God who is contradictory (because Truth never contradicts Himself) but us. We must align ourselves to God.
One last note: It is important for me to state here that the Catholic Church's order for the Ten Commandments is not set in stone. The Ten Commandments in the format that has Protestants protesting is mainly a memorization tool and not a dogmatic tradition, though a useful tradition none-the-less. For further reading see the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm In other words, the emphasis is on the spirit and the meaning of the Ten Commandments and not on having to know the exact wording (though that can hardly be thought of as harmful).
Now, Go and Set the World on Fire
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Pain Unknown
I was going to try and comment a little on C.S. Lewis's "A Grief Observed" but it is too much of a masterpiece for me to have much confidence in doing it justice. Nonetheless, I will try.
"No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear" is the first line in the book, and is rather telling of the gravity of Lewis's grief. I myself have only really encountered grief once in my life and while it wasn't a relative so nearly close as one's better half, it took me a good time to get over it. Though it could be argued that one is never completely over grief. There are certain things that might still set me off from time to time but for the most part they are simple memories. A book, per say, of his when encountered might cause me to have a strange sensation. It is something that while like fear is simply not fear. "The same fluttering of the stomach, the same restlessness, the same yawning" as Lewis puts it. I hold the memory in my mind as a glass ball and while it passes with a butterfly's shadow, the emotions linger sticky-sweet. I almost choke on the memory, but I know in time it will pass... but how much time? I try to seek comfort in that while I am still trying to stay on the straight and narrow path, I must hold the belief that he is with God. "In one sense that is most certain. She is, like God, incomprehensible and unimaginable." I cannot imagine the status of my relative, how does one "live" as a spirit? Does he await the resurrection of the dead or is time so meaningless where he is that it is as though we are already all there and Christ has come home? I don't know but then another thought bubble arises ".. was a splendid thing; a soul straight, bright, and tempered like a sword. But not a perfected saint. ... I know there are not only tears to be dried but stains to be scoured. The sword will be made even brighter."
"No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear" is the first line in the book, and is rather telling of the gravity of Lewis's grief. I myself have only really encountered grief once in my life and while it wasn't a relative so nearly close as one's better half, it took me a good time to get over it. Though it could be argued that one is never completely over grief. There are certain things that might still set me off from time to time but for the most part they are simple memories. A book, per say, of his when encountered might cause me to have a strange sensation. It is something that while like fear is simply not fear. "The same fluttering of the stomach, the same restlessness, the same yawning" as Lewis puts it. I hold the memory in my mind as a glass ball and while it passes with a butterfly's shadow, the emotions linger sticky-sweet. I almost choke on the memory, but I know in time it will pass... but how much time? I try to seek comfort in that while I am still trying to stay on the straight and narrow path, I must hold the belief that he is with God. "In one sense that is most certain. She is, like God, incomprehensible and unimaginable." I cannot imagine the status of my relative, how does one "live" as a spirit? Does he await the resurrection of the dead or is time so meaningless where he is that it is as though we are already all there and Christ has come home? I don't know but then another thought bubble arises ".. was a splendid thing; a soul straight, bright, and tempered like a sword. But not a perfected saint. ... I know there are not only tears to be dried but stains to be scoured. The sword will be made even brighter."
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Demons 悪魔
In talking of the enemy in a direct manner it only seems fit to begin in prayer:
Saint Michael the archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell satan and all the evil spirits. Amen
The prayer that you have just read was provided in 1886 by Pope Leo XIII following a devastating vision that he saw. Though details of the vision are few, Leo was shown events surrounding a period of time when the devil was to be given free reign on the world. Before that period, it was as though the devil was being held back by chains. At the appropriate time, as a means of testing the faith of the true believers (not unlike the story of Job) the devil was to be unshackled. What exactly flashed before his eyes shook the Pope so badly he sought out paper and immediately wrote the above prayer. I, personally, think that we very likely are living with an unshackled devil.
That however is not my main topic. The topic is basically the paranormal from a catholic perspective. Many of us have encountered friends who seem to have these "powers" if you will. I, myself, would at one time readily professed a certain capability in this realm as well as having a friend with a certain ability for "healing." What bothers me is; How then are we to ascertain what is of God and what is of the evil one?
Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the head exorcist for Rome writes that "Satan has the authority to give certain powers to his faithful." (Amorth38) And he goes on to further state some of these "powers" and how hard it is to differentiate their origins. Just as Moses "magic" performed before Pharaoh was often able to be replicated by Pharaoh's magicians, the actual "power"/"magic" or whatever word you want to assign to that sort of thing does not directly identify its origins.
There is a great example that is on page 40 in Fr. Gabriele Amorth's An exorcist tells his story on this matter. The parts that are italicized are notes that were added by Fr. Amorth to the newspaper article he was quoting:
"A few years ago, I experienced the game of the glass, without realizing that it was a form of spiritism. The messages that I received during this game spoke of peace and brotherhood (notice how the devil can conceal himself under the appearance of good deeds). Sometime later, while I was in Lourdes practicing my ministry, I was given strange faculties (this is also noteworthy: there are no places, no matter how sacred, where the devil cannot enter).
Parapsychology defines the faculties that I was given as extrasensorial, that is, clairvoyance, mind reading, medical diagnosing, reading of hearts and lives of people both living and dead, and other powers. A few months later I received another faculty: the ability to take away pain merely by the imposition of hands. I could eliminate or alleviate any sort of suffering; could this be "prana therapy"?
With all these powers, I had no difficulty contacting people, but after our meetings, they would walk away, shocked at my conversation and profoundly disturbed because I could see in their soul, and condemning the sins that they committed. However, as I was reading God's word, I realized that nothing had changed in my life. I continued to be quick to anger, slow in pardoning, easily resentful, and given to take offense at nothing. I was afraid to pick up my cross, I was afraid of the future and of death.
After a long journey in search of answers and many painful experiences, Jesus directed me to the renewal movement. There, I found brothers who prayed over me, and we realized that what happened to me was of diabolical origin, and not divine. I recognized and confessed my past sins, I rejected every form of the occult. These powers came to an end and God forgave me; for this, I thank him. "
Saint Michael the archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell satan and all the evil spirits. Amen
The prayer that you have just read was provided in 1886 by Pope Leo XIII following a devastating vision that he saw. Though details of the vision are few, Leo was shown events surrounding a period of time when the devil was to be given free reign on the world. Before that period, it was as though the devil was being held back by chains. At the appropriate time, as a means of testing the faith of the true believers (not unlike the story of Job) the devil was to be unshackled. What exactly flashed before his eyes shook the Pope so badly he sought out paper and immediately wrote the above prayer. I, personally, think that we very likely are living with an unshackled devil.
That however is not my main topic. The topic is basically the paranormal from a catholic perspective. Many of us have encountered friends who seem to have these "powers" if you will. I, myself, would at one time readily professed a certain capability in this realm as well as having a friend with a certain ability for "healing." What bothers me is; How then are we to ascertain what is of God and what is of the evil one?
Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the head exorcist for Rome writes that "Satan has the authority to give certain powers to his faithful." (Amorth38) And he goes on to further state some of these "powers" and how hard it is to differentiate their origins. Just as Moses "magic" performed before Pharaoh was often able to be replicated by Pharaoh's magicians, the actual "power"/"magic" or whatever word you want to assign to that sort of thing does not directly identify its origins.
There is a great example that is on page 40 in Fr. Gabriele Amorth's An exorcist tells his story on this matter. The parts that are italicized are notes that were added by Fr. Amorth to the newspaper article he was quoting:
"A few years ago, I experienced the game of the glass, without realizing that it was a form of spiritism. The messages that I received during this game spoke of peace and brotherhood (notice how the devil can conceal himself under the appearance of good deeds). Sometime later, while I was in Lourdes practicing my ministry, I was given strange faculties (this is also noteworthy: there are no places, no matter how sacred, where the devil cannot enter).
Parapsychology defines the faculties that I was given as extrasensorial, that is, clairvoyance, mind reading, medical diagnosing, reading of hearts and lives of people both living and dead, and other powers. A few months later I received another faculty: the ability to take away pain merely by the imposition of hands. I could eliminate or alleviate any sort of suffering; could this be "prana therapy"?
With all these powers, I had no difficulty contacting people, but after our meetings, they would walk away, shocked at my conversation and profoundly disturbed because I could see in their soul, and condemning the sins that they committed. However, as I was reading God's word, I realized that nothing had changed in my life. I continued to be quick to anger, slow in pardoning, easily resentful, and given to take offense at nothing. I was afraid to pick up my cross, I was afraid of the future and of death.
After a long journey in search of answers and many painful experiences, Jesus directed me to the renewal movement. There, I found brothers who prayed over me, and we realized that what happened to me was of diabolical origin, and not divine. I recognized and confessed my past sins, I rejected every form of the occult. These powers came to an end and God forgave me; for this, I thank him. "
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Prayer 祈り
Sorry, this is not the usual fare.
I will digress to talk only of prayer
For many friends and relations and foes
what is needed just the Almighty knows.
If you were at once to attempt to list
everyone you hope that God would assist.
Spending all morning, evening and nighttime
would bring no end ever in our lifetime.
Asking for health, wealth and various things
is not just for what the mockingbird sings.
For where our treasure is so too our heart.
God wants our all, every little last part.
Much to our behest only God knows best
and seemingly leaves us often unblessed.
In times of true darkness, trust in the Lord
and He will place you square back on board
Let not this chalice pass, Thy will, Thy will
that only Your will I aim to fulfill.
Not just me Lord but that within Your plan
All have their role, every child, woman, man
I find it is best to truly unite
with any and all to pray for your plight
So to all of you I make my request
to please pray for these that they might be blessed:
A father who's healing from surgery
A friend suffering from self-injury
For these intentions and for many more
of Thee O Lord we do seek to implore
Amen
I will digress to talk only of prayer
For many friends and relations and foes
what is needed just the Almighty knows.
If you were at once to attempt to list
everyone you hope that God would assist.
Spending all morning, evening and nighttime
would bring no end ever in our lifetime.
Asking for health, wealth and various things
is not just for what the mockingbird sings.
For where our treasure is so too our heart.
God wants our all, every little last part.
Much to our behest only God knows best
and seemingly leaves us often unblessed.
In times of true darkness, trust in the Lord
and He will place you square back on board
Let not this chalice pass, Thy will, Thy will
that only Your will I aim to fulfill.
Not just me Lord but that within Your plan
All have their role, every child, woman, man
I find it is best to truly unite
with any and all to pray for your plight
So to all of you I make my request
to please pray for these that they might be blessed:
A father who's healing from surgery
A friend suffering from self-injury
For these intentions and for many more
of Thee O Lord we do seek to implore
Amen
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Mortal Sin 死に至る罪
”死に至らない罪を犯している兄弟を見たら、その人のために神にお願いなさい。 そうすれば、神はその人に命をお与えになります。これは、死に至らない罪を犯している人々の場合です。死に至る罪もあります。これについては、神に願うようにとは言いません。
不義はすべて罪です。しかし、死に至らない罪もあります。”（ヨハネの手紙一 ５：１６－１７）
"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." (1 John 5:16-17)
I kind of had an epiphany with these verses. I was trying to understand purgatory because, while it was obvious to me that there's a need for the expiation of the temporal effects of sins, why there might be a need to forgive sins after death was beyond me. This is the answer: that we may still be alive in Christ but wounded. After all, there are sins that don't kill or rather are not mortal. So, someone could potentially die while still in a non-fatal state of sin. A soul in such a damaged state would be much like a dirty beggar who is entering into the Palace of Heaven. "But sir, might I not be cleansed first?" is all I can imagine being said by such a person. Certainly God "who makes all things new" would renew such a person. That period of renewal is what Catholics call Purgatory. As I may have mentioned before, the length of time one is in purgatory is unknown but it is a temporary state.
”神を愛するとは、神の掟を守ることです。神の掟は難しいものではありません。”（ヨハネの手紙一 ５：３）
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3)
Read 1 John 5 if you ever get the chance, it's just beautiful. We all know that in order to love God we have to keep His commands, but what does this verse mean by His commandments are not burdensome? I am reminded of another verse:"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."(Matthew 11:30) I like to think this is essentially God speaking of "freedom under the law." That is to say that if you truly love God you will be keeping his commands and because keeping his command will be so natural for you, you will find no weight in that burden.
After all, just as someone who truly desires to love God will find no burden in his commandments, so too someone who wants to play a game of chess will find no burden in the rules of the game.
不義はすべて罪です。しかし、死に至らない罪もあります。”（ヨハネの手紙一 ５：１６－１７）
"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." (1 John 5:16-17)
I kind of had an epiphany with these verses. I was trying to understand purgatory because, while it was obvious to me that there's a need for the expiation of the temporal effects of sins, why there might be a need to forgive sins after death was beyond me. This is the answer: that we may still be alive in Christ but wounded. After all, there are sins that don't kill or rather are not mortal. So, someone could potentially die while still in a non-fatal state of sin. A soul in such a damaged state would be much like a dirty beggar who is entering into the Palace of Heaven. "But sir, might I not be cleansed first?" is all I can imagine being said by such a person. Certainly God "who makes all things new" would renew such a person. That period of renewal is what Catholics call Purgatory. As I may have mentioned before, the length of time one is in purgatory is unknown but it is a temporary state.
”神を愛するとは、神の掟を守ることです。神の掟は難しいものではありません。”（ヨハネの手紙一 ５：３）
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3)
Read 1 John 5 if you ever get the chance, it's just beautiful. We all know that in order to love God we have to keep His commands, but what does this verse mean by His commandments are not burdensome? I am reminded of another verse:"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."(Matthew 11:30) I like to think this is essentially God speaking of "freedom under the law." That is to say that if you truly love God you will be keeping his commands and because keeping his command will be so natural for you, you will find no weight in that burden.
After all, just as someone who truly desires to love God will find no burden in his commandments, so too someone who wants to play a game of chess will find no burden in the rules of the game.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Worship and Veneration
I am the lord thy God though shalt have strange God's before me.
The Catechism on worships says, "To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful love." (CCC 2096) Which is more or less an affirmation of what Jesus said when he quoted Deuteronomy 6:13 in Luke 4:8, "And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'""
The question that arises often enough is the difference between, worship and veneration. Worship, as noted above, is most certainly reserved exclusively for God because He is the only one deserving of it. Veneration on the other hand is the honor given to persons, places or things that draw us closer to heaven.
Through Old Testament examples such as the Ark of the Covenant and the bronze serpent, it can be seen that God does not forbid veneration of Holy things. After all, why after giving the Israelites the Commandments do these objects of veneration appear?
Thomas Aquinas sums up the proper application of worship quite well:
"Religious worship is not directed to the images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is."
Now, that may initially be kind of confusing but if one keeps in mind that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, it becomes clear. For instance, religious worship of God through the Saints might go like this: A Holy Card is as an image of a saint that when we move toward we tend toward the Saint who is in turn also an image of God that in moving toward allows us to tend towards God Himself. The object of our worship then is clearly God.
Holy Card -> image of Saint -> image of God -> God
We must follow the chain through to God whenever we seek to worship Him. Communication with the saints, who we believe to not be dead but alive in Christ, surely seems to stop the line at the Saint but that is where the differences between veneration and worship are important.
Take for example, the honor that a painter would wish to receive at his masterpiece. If you were to only stare at the painter, he would respond, "what are you looking at???" and try to redirect your focus to his art. For by honoring his art you would actually be giving him the greater honor. However, it is very important to note that on the other extreme you could wrongfully assign the glory exclusively to the art. God, as the ultimate designer and artist, wants us to worship Him and to acknowledge the beauty He has created. Not to do as the atheists/scientists of modern times do and "(they) suppose(d) that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven are(were) the gods that rule the world." (wisdom 13:2)
Go and Set the World on Fire
Random last note: Yeah, yeah, the whole "second Canon"/deuterocanonical books or what protestants call "the apocrypha" is where the book Wisdom/Wisdom of Solomon is, but I still tried fruitlessly to search blueletterbible for it. Imagine this: Coming to the realization Protestants lack Wisdom.... err.. their bibles lack wisdom?... err.. yeah, when I said it out loud the first time it just didn't sound right either.
The Catechism on worships says, "To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful love." (CCC 2096) Which is more or less an affirmation of what Jesus said when he quoted Deuteronomy 6:13 in Luke 4:8, "And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'""
The question that arises often enough is the difference between, worship and veneration. Worship, as noted above, is most certainly reserved exclusively for God because He is the only one deserving of it. Veneration on the other hand is the honor given to persons, places or things that draw us closer to heaven.
Through Old Testament examples such as the Ark of the Covenant and the bronze serpent, it can be seen that God does not forbid veneration of Holy things. After all, why after giving the Israelites the Commandments do these objects of veneration appear?
Thomas Aquinas sums up the proper application of worship quite well:
"Religious worship is not directed to the images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is."
Now, that may initially be kind of confusing but if one keeps in mind that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, it becomes clear. For instance, religious worship of God through the Saints might go like this: A Holy Card is as an image of a saint that when we move toward we tend toward the Saint who is in turn also an image of God that in moving toward allows us to tend towards God Himself. The object of our worship then is clearly God.
Holy Card -> image of Saint -> image of God -> God
We must follow the chain through to God whenever we seek to worship Him. Communication with the saints, who we believe to not be dead but alive in Christ, surely seems to stop the line at the Saint but that is where the differences between veneration and worship are important.
Take for example, the honor that a painter would wish to receive at his masterpiece. If you were to only stare at the painter, he would respond, "what are you looking at???" and try to redirect your focus to his art. For by honoring his art you would actually be giving him the greater honor. However, it is very important to note that on the other extreme you could wrongfully assign the glory exclusively to the art. God, as the ultimate designer and artist, wants us to worship Him and to acknowledge the beauty He has created. Not to do as the atheists/scientists of modern times do and "(they) suppose(d) that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven are(were) the gods that rule the world." (wisdom 13:2)
Go and Set the World on Fire
Random last note: Yeah, yeah, the whole "second Canon"/deuterocanonical books or what protestants call "the apocrypha" is where the book Wisdom/Wisdom of Solomon is, but I still tried fruitlessly to search blueletterbible for it. Imagine this: Coming to the realization Protestants lack Wisdom.... err.. their bibles lack wisdom?... err.. yeah, when I said it out loud the first time it just didn't sound right either.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam
-This post is a response to my friend's comment. By no means, am I done writing this response. I just threw this together last night and proofread it today. I will plan on editing it a little more in the future. Additionally, I am only a lay Catholic and if I have misrepresented Catholicism, I do so unwittingly and will be seeking to correct any confusion.
That is an awesome verse. I especially like John 2:2 because it gives me hope for salvation; and optimism that many can be converted.
He is expiation for our sins and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
I also like John 1:7. Look it up on blueletterbible.com. Walking in the light is the opposite of walking in darkness; anything that is dark or evil, or dishonest needs to be removed from our lives. When we walk in the light, everyone can see who we are and what we are all about. No dark secrets. I also like how its the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from our sin. This almost seems to be the exclusive remedy. Just like the blood that was poured out on the altar was a temporary remedy for the sins of the Jewish nation, Jesus Christ's blood that was poured out on Galilee is the permanent remedy for the sins of the whole world. (Heb. 10:11-12).
But if we walk in the light as he is in the light then we have fellowship with one another and the blood of his son Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
Every priest stands daily at his ministry offering freguently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins But this one offered one sacrifice for sins ans took his seat forever at the right hand of god.
-Truly, honesty is a strong aspect of being a Christian, but it comes right after in verses 15-17 in which the New Covenant is mentioned. The New Covenant like any of the other Biblical Covenants had a stipulation that involved some sort of repetition. The previous covenant having of these having been circumcision. What was the sign of the new covenant? "This is my body, this is my blood."
I John 1:8 says that no one can truthfully say they don't have sin. Perhaps this is what confession is for? But if we have sin, then we also have guilt, and we deserve to die for it. Fortunately, we have the expiating death of Jesus Christ. That's why Hebrews 10:14 says that those who are sanctified by this one offering are perfected forever. There isn't anything further that needs to be done, and there isn't any need to attain to perfection. In the words of Jesus Christ, "It is finished."
- Don’t you think that is a kind of slippery slope; if sin, then guilt, if guilt then deserving of death? I don't know if you even need to put guilt into there. If sin, then death; it is what sin is after all. Guilt also can be useful however, in helping one recognize their sinful status. Although, 1 John 14-17 deals with the distinction that there is mortal sin and then there is non-mortal sin.
Therefore, instead of trying to perfect ourselves or make up for our sin in some kind of temporary way, we must confess it. (I John 1:8). No more hiding in darkness. No more struggling against ourselves. This is the key to peace, the key to being cleansed from all unrighteousness.
- Won’t argue that we need to seek forgiveness, but I think I should point out that he forgives our sins (I John 1:9), but it says nothing about removing the effects of the sin. In fact if you look at the whole of biblical history there is always a residual effect that comes from the sins we commit. Despite being forgiven for hoodwinking both the blessing and birthright that were rightly Esau's, Jacob still had the after effect of retaining both.
Also look at Romans 3:23. We all know this verse, it says that everyone has sinned. Everyone is precluded under damnation, initially. But how many people know about verses 21 and 22? That the righteousness of God is by faith.
-Yes, truly we are all precluded under damnation initially, because we enter into the family of the human race with all its inherent issues. The basic concept of Original sin. Why is a singular individual person not kept free from this? Not sure exactly, but I think it has a lot to do with the same reason we don’t get to choose what family we enter.
Now notice that this verse doesn't say, "salvation." It says, "righteousness." It doesn't say that righteousness is by the mystical body of Jesus. Or by a journey that perfects us. It says that righteousness can be ours, right this instant. And it is by faith.
- Truly, but what does it mean to have faith? Simply lip service? Jesus himself says, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” (John 15:14) Righteousness is by faith, but what else accompanies true faith?
Look at verse 24. We are justified freely. There is no cost to us. You can even check the Greek, if you want; there is a button on the left side of the verse (click on the blue "C").
-Truly, we are justified freely, that is to say there is no cost to us. Though I think you would agree that it is required that we ask for it. This is sort of a tangent but I am beginning to suspect that you completely misunderstand the concept of purgatory. It is a purging, not of sin but of the effects of sin. Forgiveness is one thing, expiation another.
-Random: When Jesus says ". . .will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32) there is a strong implication an age to come. What's that age?
-I do however know that a warrior victorious will not go to the victory party without first cleaning up. "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59). Additionally, Revelation 21:5 says “… Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.” Essentially, Jesus wants us to be the best that we can be before we enter heaven, which is something Catholic teaching affirms. As for the time frame that purgatory has, that is unknown. It could be an instant, it could last until the last judgment, anything; we just don't know.
And verse 25 says that it is Jesus Christ himself (not His church) is the expiation, through faith in His blood. All of our sins are remitted when we put our faith in the blood that He shed as the ONLY just payment for our sin. And the conclusion? Read down through verse 28. It is faith, without any works of the law, that a man is righteous?
- Truly, Jesus died for all of our sins, and is the only payment for out sins. Did you finish reading Romans 3 though? Romans 3:31 is very key and if you skip that you will miss out and be left only with a shard of truth; “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” In faith the law is established. What is going on in Romans 3 is the expression of the removal of Circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Believers in Christ are no longer required to be first Jewish and then Christian. They can go straight to being Christians. I'm not sure where it would show up in the bible at this point but being born again through water and the spirit as necessary signs of faith is related to this.
-I have to say though that I don’t understand your extra emphasis on ONLY because Catholics believe that Jesus’ death is the perfect offering given once and eternally. Jesus' sacrifice is re-presented at every Mass in continuation of Jesus's command to "do this in memory of me" and by no means occurs again. It's the new sign of the New covenant.
But what about the 10 commandments? What about confession? What about communion? These things can never purify us. (Heb. 10:14, 10:11).
-Truly, no thing can purify us except Jesus. However, if you will, following of the 10 commandments is a natural sign of faith. It can be said that no one who commits adultery really has faith in Jesus Christ. For if he truly had faith, adultery would be anathema to him. The concept of freedom under the law. It is so completely natural for one with true faith in Christ that the law is nearly a moot point, you simply don’t need to be told that adultery is bad because you understand chastity is good.
-Next, does confession purify us or does Christ? The Catholic response is Jesus and Jesus through confession. We do not divorce the two. Confession is a sacrament which is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. No true Catholic believes that confession itself gives grace but that it necessarily does because Christ commanded it. I direct you to Matt 9:8 “But when the multitudes saw [it], they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” Check out the story right before that verse if you will. Why do you think that right after forgiving someone of their sins there would be the line “which has given such power unto men”. If you follow the syllogism out to it’s conclusion, then men must have the power to forgive sins and that power was given by Jesus and is in the name of Jesus. “In the name of”, of course, is a phrase we find in the Bible to refer to “in the real presence of and in the real authority of.” Man has no power except that which Jesus has bestowed upon him. Does this mean any man can give forgiveness? No, Jesus only gave the “binding and loosing” command to his Apostles, an apostolic succession that is retained only in the Catholic Church. Moreover, they only have the power through the Sacrament which again, is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.
-Moving on to Communion, jeez you like to hit all the fun ones don’t you, what is Communion? The Catholic belief stems from Jesus’s own words “This is my Body” “This is my blood” among other verses. We believe that the Eucharist is Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine; a concept we call transubstantiation. So, truly, communion if it were just bread and wine would have no purifying effect. However, no Catholic in their right mind believes that Jesus is anything less than truly present. Merely because the sacrament is inseparable from Christ is the reason it is powerful.
Instead, Jesus said that He will no longer remember our sins. (verse 17) . And the key is verse 18: "There is no more offering for sins." The idea that we can make some sort of offering for our sins is inconsistent with scripture. That's why we draw near, not with confession, not with our money, but with a full assurance of faith. What is sprinkled? The sprinkling of our hearts and the washing of our bodies here is metaphysical; it is something that Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, and can only be experienced through faith.
-Again we must have a major false dichotomy going on here or something. Sins and the effects of sins are two different things. I have no argument concerning our being washed clean. However, if you remember that confession to a Catholic is asking forgiveness of Jesus, it becomes hard to argue against it as it is a natural act of faith. Additionally, the Eucharist is not a new offering, but a fulfillment of the Covenant Jesus made with his disciples. For more clarification see the my previous comments on this.
And look what this passage says about priests. The high priest is Jesus Christ. Human priests have to stand daily and minister the same offerings over and over (verse 11). But this is unnecessary. Look at the role Jesus plays in our lives: verse 19, we enter into the holiest of holies by the blood of Jesus Christ, with full assurance. This is our key into a relationship with God: faith, and faith alone in Jesus Christ, who is identified in verse 20 as our High Priest.
-Now, I think you just lost the context entirely. Heb 10 is all about the old Covenant ways and how they break down and are fulfilled in the new covenant. Christ is the High Priest though, regardless of time. I would also have to again bring into question where you are drawing the word “alone” out of in order to modify faith. I simply don’t think that exclusivity was present in this chapter. "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Doing the will of the Father in Faith is something he commands.
The way into salvation and justification and purity and righteousness is a living way, Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me. (John 14:6)" Perhaps this is why Jesus said not to call anyone on earth "father," (Matt. 23:9).
-Truly Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Can’t argue there, but can I just skip the whole "call no man father" thing? No? Okay... Suffice to say, it can’t mean literally, call no man father. Why? Because there are many other instances where Jesus’ followers call someone “father” “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (James 2:21) Jesus’s words must have been directed at something other than the word father. I just haven’t hit on it yet. It might be the pride obtained from falsely proclaiming authority. I have to assume that God simply does not do nonsense.
I John 4:10 also says that it is Jesus Christ, Himself, that is the propitiation for our sins. There is nothing we can do, say, think or feel to be saved. Instead, it is all Christ. Christ alone is the savior, and anything else that we can depend on for salvation or justification will fail us.
- All mercy and grace comes from Christ. I have to wonder if my notions of Christians having an understanding of other religions was a misconception. Do you think Catholics depend on anything other than Christ? I am confused. I John 4:10 is an obvious reference to the fact that we cannot earn our way to heaven.
Look at I John 2:22-23. What is it to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ? It is to acknowledge Him as the sole benefactor, the only source of salvation. Anyone who denies the power and deity of Christ, and His power to completely and totally remit all sins by His death on the cross does not have the Father. Anyone who is not saved by faith and faith alone, anyone who thinks that anything other than Christ Himself is necessary for remission of sins, is not a child of God.
- Okay... okay.. I think I can agree with everything but the statement by “faith and faith alone” because by that you mean to imply that God only wants you to believe in him. Truly he does want only one's faith, but true faith is not simply blind faith. By no means does one earn their way to heaven but on the flip side of the coin “faith without works is dead”. It’s a symbiotic relationship, if you don’t have faith you don’t have works and if you don’t have Christ you don’t have the father. Though admittedly, you can say that one may have works without faith. However they truly don't even have works because the significance of those works is nothing, without Christ.
This might seem offensive, but the idea that, to be saved, you need to be in the Catholic church, is contrary to what it says here in I John 2. I John 5:12 makes is perfectly clear. You either have the Son, or you don't. You either have life, or you don't. There's nothing else to it. I may not be in the Catholic church, but I do have the Son. I have put my faith in His sacrifice. That's why I believe that I do, indeed, have life.
-To borrow your own words: this might seem offensive. Do you have the Son? What does it mean to have the Son? The Catholic belief is that there is no salvation outside the Church, but what is the Church? Even Catholicism will concede that only Jesus knows who will make it to heaven. The main issue here, as I understand it, is that Christians want dead certainty that they are saved and definitely are going to heaven. As if somehow the goal was heaven, nay the goal is Jesus. “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:22) Obedience is a necessary aspect of Faith. Truly we know not the hour nor the time but while we cannot be certain of our own personal attainment of heaven, we can be 100% secure in believing in God’s unending mercy.
- Secondly, you conjecture that “There’s nothing else to it” but that contradicts Jesus’s saying that “you are my friends if you keep my commands.” It all depends on what Jesus commanded.
-If you look at the end of Matthew at what is called “the great commission”, Jesus tells his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations”. What is interesting is that he said disciples and not, per say, followers. The difference between the two is discipline. What I was getting at exactly I kind of forgot, but suffice to say that discipline involves some sort of a set of parameters.
- Just to clarify the Catholic position: the Church is not an institution founded on mere men. No, God said He would send His Spirit to guide the apostles and they were guided to form a Church on Peter, the rock. Most of their activities that act as a model for the current church are in Acts of the Apostles.
And look at the next verse, I John 5:13-- "... that ye may know that ye have eternal life..." Your church doesn't want you to know whether or not you have eternal life until you die. Jesus Christ says that you can know right now. This verse is addressed to everyone who believes on the Son of God, and John wants them to know that they have eternal life.
- Please tell me you did not just say that. Do we know that we will be with Him simply because we believe? I John 5:13 is referencing what was just written throughout I John but what does I John say about certainty of Eternal life? I'll leave you to look through the book to disern that. However, the verse is addressed to “you that believe on the name of the Son of God.” That faith on the name is a necessary element but “faith without works is dead” and “you are my friend if you keep my commands”. Essentially, what I am trying to say is that if you follow that argument out to its conclusion, nothing short of offering everything you can offer will bring you to fulfillment by faith in Christ.
Jesus Himself said in John 5: 24, that if you accept His Word and believe on His Father, you will have eternal life. He didn't set out any other condition for righteousness. And we know that Jesus isn't a liar. If he says someone has eternal life, they have it. You can be certain. He also gets kind of rough with the Pharisees in verse 38. He says that they aren't children of God, because, if they were, they would believe in Jesus Christ instead of their dead legalistic traditions. He says, in verse 39, that we as men think the Scriptures are going to lead us to eternal life, but that it is these very Scriptures that testify of Jesus Himself. He was saying, in essence, "Here I am! The answer to all of your shortcomings, your sin, your failure. I'm standing right in front of you. But, `Ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life.'"
-Actually, that is true but the condition that faith places on us is the truly excessive weight of glory. Why do you bring up verse 39, is that verse not contradictory for sola scriptura Christians who cling to scripture? Jesus was most certainly not talking about the New Testament scriptures at the time he said that but he was refering to what the Pharisees were not catching in the old testament that Jesus's presence was fulfilling.
Don't discredit Jesus Christ. Put your faith in Him now. Believe His promise that you can be saved from your sin and empowered to live a godly life. And don't just take my word for it. Read John 5, John 8, and Romans 3. Learn from Romans 8:12-17 how the Holy Spirit can give us a full assurance of life that starts now and never ends. It is not too good to be true. It's not arrogant to think that we can be perfected and know for sure what is going to happen to us when we die. It's what the Bible says, and I believe it.
And I believe that's what makes me a Christian
- I don’t discredit Jesus Christ, but perhaps I do not need to tell you that at this point. Thank your for the excellent sections of the Bible to read.
-I have, in case you hadn’t noticed, been reading them and much more of late, but in saying that I think I will inadvertently miscommunicate something. That is to say I do know the Bible way more than originally expected. Why? Because I go to Mass consistently and for a number of years went to daily Mass. What does that have to do with anything? Well, if you attend mass every day for two years you will have heard the entire bible. Every Sunday for three years will net the majority of scripture and from what I understand all of the New Testament.
-Whether I have physically sat down much in the past and read through the my personal Bible is another question because I really haven’t done enough of that by my own standards. I've read Lord of the Rings five times all the way through but I've only been through the Bible twice on my own. More often than not, I am disoriented as to locations of verses in the Bible but that’s really where modern conveniences like blueletterbible come in handy. As I have been doing more actual picking up and reading of my Bible, I am finding more and more how Bible-believing and Christo-centric the Catholic Church really is. I had this stupid misconception that somehow because Christians emphasized that they were Bible-believing that I somehow wasn’t. Quite the contrary, the prayers that I pray, as in the “Our Father” “Hail Mary” and “Glory Be”, are all found in scripture. Nearly every part of the Mass is from scripture. The "Sign of the Cross" is, for example, as simple testament to the fact that “we proclaim Christ crucified.” As a more hairy example, the "Hail Mary" is pulled mostly from Luke, but the key thing to note is how Christ is the central gravity of the prayer. Mary has no significance without Christ. Hail Mary, full of grace the lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed in the fruit of thy womb JESUS, Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen.
- I need to say one more thing; I have to apologize for being so callous about faith in the past. I was raised to always understand my enemy so to speak. By studying other religions throughout high school, I was raised with a basic knowledge of what sets Catholicism apart from all the other belief systems of the world. This means that I’ve only recently been coming to the startling conclusion that people actually are often completely in the dark about what Catholics really believe.(Thanks Ray Guarendi and Fr. Kevin Fate) I tend to get stuck in that view because I don't perceive myself as totally in the dark about other religions. This means also that when you and I were talking religion often in the past, I for some reason was daft enough to believe we were both speaking under the same context when we really weren’t.
-Additionally, I am often quite facetious in the way I joke about the cliches that people hold about Christianity, Homeschoolers etc. Regrettably, I thought that the joke was that we, meaning whoever I was joking with, were laughing together at the stupidity of the joke with a mutual understanding of it as a falsehood. I’ve come to the conclusion that I have to be more vocal about what Catholicism is and what homeschooling is all about. Jokes and anecdotes(parables if you will) are the way people often truly express what they believe. By allowing myself to participate in erroneous jokes in the past, I fear that I have helped perpetuate or even create false beliefs or misconceptions about both Homeschoolers and Christ's church.
-Moreover, the basic issue comes down often to terminology we use to talk about faith. Too often Catholics get blindsided by questions like “have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.” That terminology is not natural to a Catholic, now if you to ask a Catholic “Do you believe that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead to become your Savior?” They should answer yes.
-Often I think that a Catholic basically believes very close to what he is being asked in the first question but because it is soooo basic, the question under the guise of new terminology is perceived as a trap. I know that was my initial reaction the first time I was asked that question. (edit: It is to a certain extent a trap actually, because while a Catholic can agree that Jesus died for our sins, and that we can pursue a personal relationship with him; we cannot presume to have knowledge of our own destination.)
-Eph 1:21-23 ".. and He has put all things under His feet and has made Him the head over all things for the church,which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." Christ as the head, the Church as the Body, this verse outlines the teaching of the mystical body of Christ.
-wow, if anyone actually reads this all the way to the end I will be amazed.
Go and Set the world on FIRE.
That is an awesome verse. I especially like John 2:2 because it gives me hope for salvation; and optimism that many can be converted.
He is expiation for our sins and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
I also like John 1:7. Look it up on blueletterbible.com. Walking in the light is the opposite of walking in darkness; anything that is dark or evil, or dishonest needs to be removed from our lives. When we walk in the light, everyone can see who we are and what we are all about. No dark secrets. I also like how its the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from our sin. This almost seems to be the exclusive remedy. Just like the blood that was poured out on the altar was a temporary remedy for the sins of the Jewish nation, Jesus Christ's blood that was poured out on Galilee is the permanent remedy for the sins of the whole world. (Heb. 10:11-12).
But if we walk in the light as he is in the light then we have fellowship with one another and the blood of his son Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
Every priest stands daily at his ministry offering freguently those same sacrifices that can never take away sins But this one offered one sacrifice for sins ans took his seat forever at the right hand of god.
-Truly, honesty is a strong aspect of being a Christian, but it comes right after in verses 15-17 in which the New Covenant is mentioned. The New Covenant like any of the other Biblical Covenants had a stipulation that involved some sort of repetition. The previous covenant having of these having been circumcision. What was the sign of the new covenant? "This is my body, this is my blood."
I John 1:8 says that no one can truthfully say they don't have sin. Perhaps this is what confession is for? But if we have sin, then we also have guilt, and we deserve to die for it. Fortunately, we have the expiating death of Jesus Christ. That's why Hebrews 10:14 says that those who are sanctified by this one offering are perfected forever. There isn't anything further that needs to be done, and there isn't any need to attain to perfection. In the words of Jesus Christ, "It is finished."
- Don’t you think that is a kind of slippery slope; if sin, then guilt, if guilt then deserving of death? I don't know if you even need to put guilt into there. If sin, then death; it is what sin is after all. Guilt also can be useful however, in helping one recognize their sinful status. Although, 1 John 14-17 deals with the distinction that there is mortal sin and then there is non-mortal sin.
Therefore, instead of trying to perfect ourselves or make up for our sin in some kind of temporary way, we must confess it. (I John 1:8). No more hiding in darkness. No more struggling against ourselves. This is the key to peace, the key to being cleansed from all unrighteousness.
- Won’t argue that we need to seek forgiveness, but I think I should point out that he forgives our sins (I John 1:9), but it says nothing about removing the effects of the sin. In fact if you look at the whole of biblical history there is always a residual effect that comes from the sins we commit. Despite being forgiven for hoodwinking both the blessing and birthright that were rightly Esau's, Jacob still had the after effect of retaining both.
Also look at Romans 3:23. We all know this verse, it says that everyone has sinned. Everyone is precluded under damnation, initially. But how many people know about verses 21 and 22? That the righteousness of God is by faith.
-Yes, truly we are all precluded under damnation initially, because we enter into the family of the human race with all its inherent issues. The basic concept of Original sin. Why is a singular individual person not kept free from this? Not sure exactly, but I think it has a lot to do with the same reason we don’t get to choose what family we enter.
Now notice that this verse doesn't say, "salvation." It says, "righteousness." It doesn't say that righteousness is by the mystical body of Jesus. Or by a journey that perfects us. It says that righteousness can be ours, right this instant. And it is by faith.
- Truly, but what does it mean to have faith? Simply lip service? Jesus himself says, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” (John 15:14) Righteousness is by faith, but what else accompanies true faith?
Look at verse 24. We are justified freely. There is no cost to us. You can even check the Greek, if you want; there is a button on the left side of the verse (click on the blue "C").
-Truly, we are justified freely, that is to say there is no cost to us. Though I think you would agree that it is required that we ask for it. This is sort of a tangent but I am beginning to suspect that you completely misunderstand the concept of purgatory. It is a purging, not of sin but of the effects of sin. Forgiveness is one thing, expiation another.
-Random: When Jesus says ". . .will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32) there is a strong implication an age to come. What's that age?
-I do however know that a warrior victorious will not go to the victory party without first cleaning up. "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59). Additionally, Revelation 21:5 says “… Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.” Essentially, Jesus wants us to be the best that we can be before we enter heaven, which is something Catholic teaching affirms. As for the time frame that purgatory has, that is unknown. It could be an instant, it could last until the last judgment, anything; we just don't know.
And verse 25 says that it is Jesus Christ himself (not His church) is the expiation, through faith in His blood. All of our sins are remitted when we put our faith in the blood that He shed as the ONLY just payment for our sin. And the conclusion? Read down through verse 28. It is faith, without any works of the law, that a man is righteous?
- Truly, Jesus died for all of our sins, and is the only payment for out sins. Did you finish reading Romans 3 though? Romans 3:31 is very key and if you skip that you will miss out and be left only with a shard of truth; “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” In faith the law is established. What is going on in Romans 3 is the expression of the removal of Circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Believers in Christ are no longer required to be first Jewish and then Christian. They can go straight to being Christians. I'm not sure where it would show up in the bible at this point but being born again through water and the spirit as necessary signs of faith is related to this.
-I have to say though that I don’t understand your extra emphasis on ONLY because Catholics believe that Jesus’ death is the perfect offering given once and eternally. Jesus' sacrifice is re-presented at every Mass in continuation of Jesus's command to "do this in memory of me" and by no means occurs again. It's the new sign of the New covenant.
But what about the 10 commandments? What about confession? What about communion? These things can never purify us. (Heb. 10:14, 10:11).
-Truly, no thing can purify us except Jesus. However, if you will, following of the 10 commandments is a natural sign of faith. It can be said that no one who commits adultery really has faith in Jesus Christ. For if he truly had faith, adultery would be anathema to him. The concept of freedom under the law. It is so completely natural for one with true faith in Christ that the law is nearly a moot point, you simply don’t need to be told that adultery is bad because you understand chastity is good.
-Next, does confession purify us or does Christ? The Catholic response is Jesus and Jesus through confession. We do not divorce the two. Confession is a sacrament which is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. No true Catholic believes that confession itself gives grace but that it necessarily does because Christ commanded it. I direct you to Matt 9:8 “But when the multitudes saw [it], they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” Check out the story right before that verse if you will. Why do you think that right after forgiving someone of their sins there would be the line “which has given such power unto men”. If you follow the syllogism out to it’s conclusion, then men must have the power to forgive sins and that power was given by Jesus and is in the name of Jesus. “In the name of”, of course, is a phrase we find in the Bible to refer to “in the real presence of and in the real authority of.” Man has no power except that which Jesus has bestowed upon him. Does this mean any man can give forgiveness? No, Jesus only gave the “binding and loosing” command to his Apostles, an apostolic succession that is retained only in the Catholic Church. Moreover, they only have the power through the Sacrament which again, is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.
-Moving on to Communion, jeez you like to hit all the fun ones don’t you, what is Communion? The Catholic belief stems from Jesus’s own words “This is my Body” “This is my blood” among other verses. We believe that the Eucharist is Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine; a concept we call transubstantiation. So, truly, communion if it were just bread and wine would have no purifying effect. However, no Catholic in their right mind believes that Jesus is anything less than truly present. Merely because the sacrament is inseparable from Christ is the reason it is powerful.
Instead, Jesus said that He will no longer remember our sins. (verse 17) . And the key is verse 18: "There is no more offering for sins." The idea that we can make some sort of offering for our sins is inconsistent with scripture. That's why we draw near, not with confession, not with our money, but with a full assurance of faith. What is sprinkled? The sprinkling of our hearts and the washing of our bodies here is metaphysical; it is something that Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, and can only be experienced through faith.
-Again we must have a major false dichotomy going on here or something. Sins and the effects of sins are two different things. I have no argument concerning our being washed clean. However, if you remember that confession to a Catholic is asking forgiveness of Jesus, it becomes hard to argue against it as it is a natural act of faith. Additionally, the Eucharist is not a new offering, but a fulfillment of the Covenant Jesus made with his disciples. For more clarification see the my previous comments on this.
And look what this passage says about priests. The high priest is Jesus Christ. Human priests have to stand daily and minister the same offerings over and over (verse 11). But this is unnecessary. Look at the role Jesus plays in our lives: verse 19, we enter into the holiest of holies by the blood of Jesus Christ, with full assurance. This is our key into a relationship with God: faith, and faith alone in Jesus Christ, who is identified in verse 20 as our High Priest.
-Now, I think you just lost the context entirely. Heb 10 is all about the old Covenant ways and how they break down and are fulfilled in the new covenant. Christ is the High Priest though, regardless of time. I would also have to again bring into question where you are drawing the word “alone” out of in order to modify faith. I simply don’t think that exclusivity was present in this chapter. "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Doing the will of the Father in Faith is something he commands.
The way into salvation and justification and purity and righteousness is a living way, Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me. (John 14:6)" Perhaps this is why Jesus said not to call anyone on earth "father," (Matt. 23:9).
-Truly Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Can’t argue there, but can I just skip the whole "call no man father" thing? No? Okay... Suffice to say, it can’t mean literally, call no man father. Why? Because there are many other instances where Jesus’ followers call someone “father” “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (James 2:21) Jesus’s words must have been directed at something other than the word father. I just haven’t hit on it yet. It might be the pride obtained from falsely proclaiming authority. I have to assume that God simply does not do nonsense.
I John 4:10 also says that it is Jesus Christ, Himself, that is the propitiation for our sins. There is nothing we can do, say, think or feel to be saved. Instead, it is all Christ. Christ alone is the savior, and anything else that we can depend on for salvation or justification will fail us.
- All mercy and grace comes from Christ. I have to wonder if my notions of Christians having an understanding of other religions was a misconception. Do you think Catholics depend on anything other than Christ? I am confused. I John 4:10 is an obvious reference to the fact that we cannot earn our way to heaven.
Look at I John 2:22-23. What is it to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ? It is to acknowledge Him as the sole benefactor, the only source of salvation. Anyone who denies the power and deity of Christ, and His power to completely and totally remit all sins by His death on the cross does not have the Father. Anyone who is not saved by faith and faith alone, anyone who thinks that anything other than Christ Himself is necessary for remission of sins, is not a child of God.
- Okay... okay.. I think I can agree with everything but the statement by “faith and faith alone” because by that you mean to imply that God only wants you to believe in him. Truly he does want only one's faith, but true faith is not simply blind faith. By no means does one earn their way to heaven but on the flip side of the coin “faith without works is dead”. It’s a symbiotic relationship, if you don’t have faith you don’t have works and if you don’t have Christ you don’t have the father. Though admittedly, you can say that one may have works without faith. However they truly don't even have works because the significance of those works is nothing, without Christ.
This might seem offensive, but the idea that, to be saved, you need to be in the Catholic church, is contrary to what it says here in I John 2. I John 5:12 makes is perfectly clear. You either have the Son, or you don't. You either have life, or you don't. There's nothing else to it. I may not be in the Catholic church, but I do have the Son. I have put my faith in His sacrifice. That's why I believe that I do, indeed, have life.
-To borrow your own words: this might seem offensive. Do you have the Son? What does it mean to have the Son? The Catholic belief is that there is no salvation outside the Church, but what is the Church? Even Catholicism will concede that only Jesus knows who will make it to heaven. The main issue here, as I understand it, is that Christians want dead certainty that they are saved and definitely are going to heaven. As if somehow the goal was heaven, nay the goal is Jesus. “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:22) Obedience is a necessary aspect of Faith. Truly we know not the hour nor the time but while we cannot be certain of our own personal attainment of heaven, we can be 100% secure in believing in God’s unending mercy.
- Secondly, you conjecture that “There’s nothing else to it” but that contradicts Jesus’s saying that “you are my friends if you keep my commands.” It all depends on what Jesus commanded.
-If you look at the end of Matthew at what is called “the great commission”, Jesus tells his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations”. What is interesting is that he said disciples and not, per say, followers. The difference between the two is discipline. What I was getting at exactly I kind of forgot, but suffice to say that discipline involves some sort of a set of parameters.
- Just to clarify the Catholic position: the Church is not an institution founded on mere men. No, God said He would send His Spirit to guide the apostles and they were guided to form a Church on Peter, the rock. Most of their activities that act as a model for the current church are in Acts of the Apostles.
And look at the next verse, I John 5:13-- "... that ye may know that ye have eternal life..." Your church doesn't want you to know whether or not you have eternal life until you die. Jesus Christ says that you can know right now. This verse is addressed to everyone who believes on the Son of God, and John wants them to know that they have eternal life.
- Please tell me you did not just say that. Do we know that we will be with Him simply because we believe? I John 5:13 is referencing what was just written throughout I John but what does I John say about certainty of Eternal life? I'll leave you to look through the book to disern that. However, the verse is addressed to “you that believe on the name of the Son of God.” That faith on the name is a necessary element but “faith without works is dead” and “you are my friend if you keep my commands”. Essentially, what I am trying to say is that if you follow that argument out to its conclusion, nothing short of offering everything you can offer will bring you to fulfillment by faith in Christ.
Jesus Himself said in John 5: 24, that if you accept His Word and believe on His Father, you will have eternal life. He didn't set out any other condition for righteousness. And we know that Jesus isn't a liar. If he says someone has eternal life, they have it. You can be certain. He also gets kind of rough with the Pharisees in verse 38. He says that they aren't children of God, because, if they were, they would believe in Jesus Christ instead of their dead legalistic traditions. He says, in verse 39, that we as men think the Scriptures are going to lead us to eternal life, but that it is these very Scriptures that testify of Jesus Himself. He was saying, in essence, "Here I am! The answer to all of your shortcomings, your sin, your failure. I'm standing right in front of you. But, `Ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life.'"
-Actually, that is true but the condition that faith places on us is the truly excessive weight of glory. Why do you bring up verse 39, is that verse not contradictory for sola scriptura Christians who cling to scripture? Jesus was most certainly not talking about the New Testament scriptures at the time he said that but he was refering to what the Pharisees were not catching in the old testament that Jesus's presence was fulfilling.
Don't discredit Jesus Christ. Put your faith in Him now. Believe His promise that you can be saved from your sin and empowered to live a godly life. And don't just take my word for it. Read John 5, John 8, and Romans 3. Learn from Romans 8:12-17 how the Holy Spirit can give us a full assurance of life that starts now and never ends. It is not too good to be true. It's not arrogant to think that we can be perfected and know for sure what is going to happen to us when we die. It's what the Bible says, and I believe it.
And I believe that's what makes me a Christian
- I don’t discredit Jesus Christ, but perhaps I do not need to tell you that at this point. Thank your for the excellent sections of the Bible to read.
-I have, in case you hadn’t noticed, been reading them and much more of late, but in saying that I think I will inadvertently miscommunicate something. That is to say I do know the Bible way more than originally expected. Why? Because I go to Mass consistently and for a number of years went to daily Mass. What does that have to do with anything? Well, if you attend mass every day for two years you will have heard the entire bible. Every Sunday for three years will net the majority of scripture and from what I understand all of the New Testament.
-Whether I have physically sat down much in the past and read through the my personal Bible is another question because I really haven’t done enough of that by my own standards. I've read Lord of the Rings five times all the way through but I've only been through the Bible twice on my own. More often than not, I am disoriented as to locations of verses in the Bible but that’s really where modern conveniences like blueletterbible come in handy. As I have been doing more actual picking up and reading of my Bible, I am finding more and more how Bible-believing and Christo-centric the Catholic Church really is. I had this stupid misconception that somehow because Christians emphasized that they were Bible-believing that I somehow wasn’t. Quite the contrary, the prayers that I pray, as in the “Our Father” “Hail Mary” and “Glory Be”, are all found in scripture. Nearly every part of the Mass is from scripture. The "Sign of the Cross" is, for example, as simple testament to the fact that “we proclaim Christ crucified.” As a more hairy example, the "Hail Mary" is pulled mostly from Luke, but the key thing to note is how Christ is the central gravity of the prayer. Mary has no significance without Christ. Hail Mary, full of grace the lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed in the fruit of thy womb JESUS, Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen.
- I need to say one more thing; I have to apologize for being so callous about faith in the past. I was raised to always understand my enemy so to speak. By studying other religions throughout high school, I was raised with a basic knowledge of what sets Catholicism apart from all the other belief systems of the world. This means that I’ve only recently been coming to the startling conclusion that people actually are often completely in the dark about what Catholics really believe.(Thanks Ray Guarendi and Fr. Kevin Fate) I tend to get stuck in that view because I don't perceive myself as totally in the dark about other religions. This means also that when you and I were talking religion often in the past, I for some reason was daft enough to believe we were both speaking under the same context when we really weren’t.
-Additionally, I am often quite facetious in the way I joke about the cliches that people hold about Christianity, Homeschoolers etc. Regrettably, I thought that the joke was that we, meaning whoever I was joking with, were laughing together at the stupidity of the joke with a mutual understanding of it as a falsehood. I’ve come to the conclusion that I have to be more vocal about what Catholicism is and what homeschooling is all about. Jokes and anecdotes(parables if you will) are the way people often truly express what they believe. By allowing myself to participate in erroneous jokes in the past, I fear that I have helped perpetuate or even create false beliefs or misconceptions about both Homeschoolers and Christ's church.
-Moreover, the basic issue comes down often to terminology we use to talk about faith. Too often Catholics get blindsided by questions like “have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.” That terminology is not natural to a Catholic, now if you to ask a Catholic “Do you believe that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead to become your Savior?” They should answer yes.
-Often I think that a Catholic basically believes very close to what he is being asked in the first question but because it is soooo basic, the question under the guise of new terminology is perceived as a trap. I know that was my initial reaction the first time I was asked that question. (edit: It is to a certain extent a trap actually, because while a Catholic can agree that Jesus died for our sins, and that we can pursue a personal relationship with him; we cannot presume to have knowledge of our own destination.)
-Eph 1:21-23 ".. and He has put all things under His feet and has made Him the head over all things for the church,which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." Christ as the head, the Church as the Body, this verse outlines the teaching of the mystical body of Christ.
-wow, if anyone actually reads this all the way to the end I will be amazed.
Go and Set the world on FIRE.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Indulgences 贖宥 しょくゆう
This is the second version of this post due partially to my lack of research:
To start of with the Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC) defines an indulgence as
" An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, when the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and saints." CCC1471
Indulgences are the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment left by sins that have already been forgiven. They are by no means a free ticket into heaven nor are they free tickets to sin either. They come in many varieties; universal or local, perpetual or temporary, real or personal, plenary or partial. Often there is a number of days, months or years of time that a partial indulgence is said to cancel but "Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value."
Essentially, Indulgences represent a expiation the temporal punishment for a sin, but by no means do we have any clue how much is expiated. Ultimately, only God knows how much time we will have to spend in purgatory, or for that matter whether time truly applies in the afterlife.
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." 1 John 2:2
"この方こそ、私達の罪、いや、私達の罪ばかりでなく全世界の罪を償ういけにえです。”ヨハネの手紙一 ２：２
I admit that I could not read this entire verse in Japanese the first time I looked at it. "Tsugunau" is a word that means most nearly "atone" but could also be said to mean "to offer compensation for". Additionally, looking up propitiation and expiate I found fall into the category of synonyms for atone.
Language bits aside, John is basically saying that Jesus not only forgave our sins but is the sacrifice that can offer expiation for our sins as well. We as Catholics believe that the church is the mystical body of Christ and that flowing from that it only makes sense that the Church could offer not only forgives of sins but expiation as well. As a simple extension of Christ. The forgiveness of sins which is given in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the expiation following afterwards through indulgences(though not often indulged in. . .) or purgatory all revolve around John's words.
Go and set the world on fire!
To start of with the Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC) defines an indulgence as
" An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, when the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and saints." CCC1471
Indulgences are the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment left by sins that have already been forgiven. They are by no means a free ticket into heaven nor are they free tickets to sin either. They come in many varieties; universal or local, perpetual or temporary, real or personal, plenary or partial. Often there is a number of days, months or years of time that a partial indulgence is said to cancel but "Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value."
Essentially, Indulgences represent a expiation the temporal punishment for a sin, but by no means do we have any clue how much is expiated. Ultimately, only God knows how much time we will have to spend in purgatory, or for that matter whether time truly applies in the afterlife.
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." 1 John 2:2
"この方こそ、私達の罪、いや、私達の罪ばかりでなく全世界の罪を償ういけにえです。”ヨハネの手紙一 ２：２
I admit that I could not read this entire verse in Japanese the first time I looked at it. "Tsugunau" is a word that means most nearly "atone" but could also be said to mean "to offer compensation for". Additionally, looking up propitiation and expiate I found fall into the category of synonyms for atone.
Language bits aside, John is basically saying that Jesus not only forgave our sins but is the sacrifice that can offer expiation for our sins as well. We as Catholics believe that the church is the mystical body of Christ and that flowing from that it only makes sense that the Church could offer not only forgives of sins but expiation as well. As a simple extension of Christ. The forgiveness of sins which is given in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the expiation following afterwards through indulgences(though not often indulged in. . .) or purgatory all revolve around John's words.
Go and set the world on fire!
Pilate ピラト
Today, I witnessed one friend willfully verbally debasing another friend of mine who was not present. Interestingly, he used the phrase “I wash my hands of it” in reference to his willingness to socially crucify the other. This phrase is modernly used as a way of denying responsibility. We as followers of Christ know that this saying has its origins in Scripture.
“And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man. Look you to it.” (Matt 27:24)
“ピラトは、それ以上言っても、無駄なばかりか、かえって騒動が起こりそうなのを見て、水を持って来させ、群衆の前で手を洗っていった。「この人の血について、わたしには責任がない。お前たちの問題だ」マタイ２７：２４
I just love translations. No. Actually, I am forever quibbling with the way things can be said or communicated. The way you say something with a certain level of impact in one culture cannot be said literally in another and have the same effect. For example the word for "letter"手紙, as in one you send to a friend, in Japanese is written in the same way the Chinese write the word for "toilet paper". For example, let’s take a closer look at the words “Look you to it” for I simply do not know exactly what this means in English. However, it evidently means something close to “It’s your problem” because that would be an approximate translation of the Japanese.
Essentially, Pontius Pilate is the epitomy of the good guy pagan. He is willing to help you so long as his neck is not on the line. As we see with the case here with Jesus and Pilate, Pilate could see that his tactics were not prevailing and that nothing more could be done or said to sway the crowds. In order to save this “just man” he would have to have stood up against the crowds and the pharisees, but courage would not come to him.
In the end, Pontius Pilate cracked under the pressures of the crowd. How often we too find ourselves unable to stand on our own two feet in opposition of the social crowd around us. He chose to wash his hands of the whole situation in a vain attempt to clear his own conscience. Through all of history, he is now fated to be remembered in the creed as the one whom Jesus suffered most under. “Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.”
Truly the story goes deeper. Following from Scripture into what the Fathers of the early church tell us, what goes around comes around. Tiberius Caeser had fallen ill and sent messengers to retrieve a physician from the area of Jerusalem. This Jesus, he had heard could cure with a mere touch. Pilate is greatly troubled by this news and sends the messenger back with a message concerning Jesus's death. Before the messenger returns however he encounters a woman by the name of Veronica who possesses a canvas with our lord's faith imprinted on it. She speaks with him and eventually travels with him to see Caeser who is cured upon seeing the imprinted face of Jesus.
Caeser's life is saved but Pilate's life is now in danger. Caeser calls Pilate to be tried for his crimes that nearly brought about his death. However, each time Caeser meets with Pilate his anger leaves him and cannot bring Pilate to trial. It says "Then, by a divine impulse, or perhaps by the advice of some Christians," he had Pilate stripped of his tunic and his fury returned. "It was told him that that tunic had belonged to the Lord Jesus." Pilate was tried and found guilty, but before the death sentence could be carried out he killed himself. Thus, one who took life's own life was taken.
The worst thing in the world is for good men to do nothing in response to the evil around them.
Go and set the World on Fire.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Chesterton on Charity 慈善
Charity is a paradox....Stated baldy, charity means one of two things-pardoning unpardonable acts, or loving unlovable people. But if we ask ourselves... what a sensible pagan would feel about such a subject, we shall probably be beginning at the bottom of it. A sensible pagan would say that there were some people one could forgive, and some one couldn't: a slave who stole wine could be laughed at; a slave who betrayed his benefactor could be killed, and cursed even after he was killed. Insofar as the act was pardonable, the man was pardonable. That again is rational, even refreshing; but it is a dilution. It leaves no place for a horror of injustice.... And it leaves no place for a mere tenderness for men as men, such as is the whole fascination of the charitable . Christianity came in... startlingly with a sword, and clove one thing from another. It divided the crime from the criminal. The criminal we must forgive unto seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all. It was not enough that the slaves who stole wine inspired partly anger and partly kindly. We must be much more angry with theft than before, and yet much kinder to thieves than before. There was room for wrath and love to run wild. ~ Orthodoxy
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)