On December 28, the Church commemorates the slaughter of the holy innocents.
These are the baby boys in Bethlehem that Herod the Great had slaughtered in an attempt to kill the Baby Jesus.
But many people today challenge the idea that this ever took place.
"We have no record of it!" they say.
Actually, we do . . .
Who Was Herod the Great?
Herod the Great was the king of Judea at the time Jesus was born.
He had the title "king," but he was not an independent ruler. Instead, he was a client king of the Roman empire who had been named "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate.
This meant that he was a local ruler who ultimately answered to Rome and who owed his throne to the Roman Senate.
Religiously, Herod was a Jew, but ethnically, he was descended from a neighboring people, the Idumeans. They had been forcibly converted to Judaism in the time of the Maccabees (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13:9:1).
As a ruler, he built a lot of things--fortresses, aqueducts, theaters, etc. Undertaking major public works projects was one of the ways that rulers in the ancient world built a legacy for themselves.
His most famous building projects was the Temple in Jerusalem, which he began dramatically expanding.
He also had another side . . .
Paranoid and Bloodthirsty
Particularly toward the end of his reign, Herod was increasingly paranoid, perceiving plots against his throne right and left.
Some of these plots he thought were being hatched by members of his own family.
But that didn't stop him from dealing with them ruthlessly.
When faced with a perceived threat to his power he was willing to kill his own family members.
He killed one of his wives, Mariamne, and three of his sons: Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater.
Think of the body count just within his own family: Four people. A wife and three sons!
What kind of monster does that to his own family members?
It is no surprise that Caesar Augustus reportedly quipped, “It is better to be Herod’s pig than son” (Macrobius, Saturnalia 2:4:2).
The joke was that since Herod was a Jew and would not eat pork, his pig would be safe. But his sons were not safe.
Total. Moral. Monster.
His cruelty lasted right up until the end, when he ordered that one person in every family should be slain so that the whole kingdom would be forced to mourn at the occasion of his death.
The Jewish historian Josephus records:
He commanded that all the principal men of the entire Jewish nation wheresoever they lived, should be called to him.
Accordingly, there were a great number that came, because the whole nation was called, and all men heard of this call, and death was the penalty of such as should despise the letters that were sent to call them.
And now the king was in a wild rage against them all, the innocent as well as those that had afforded him ground for accusations.
And when they were come, he ordered them all to be shut up in the hippodrome, and sent for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, and spoke thus to them:—“I shall die in a little time . . . but what principally troubles me is this, that I shall die without being lamented, and without such mourning as men usually expect at a king’s death.”
For that he was not unacquainted with the temper of the Jews, that his death would be a thing very desirable, and exceedingly acceptable to them; because during his lifetime they were ready to revolt from him. . . .
[Herod therefore ordered] those that are in custody shot with their darts. . . .
[H]e took care, when he was departing out of this life, that the whole nation should be put into mourning, and indeed made desolate of their dearest kindred, when he gave order that one out of every family should be slain, although they had done nothing that was unjust, or against him, nor were they accused of any other crimes [Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17:6:5-6].
Got that?
Herod rounded up the leading men of Israel and ordered them to be killed upon his death, just so every family would be forced to mourn at his passing.
Total. Moral. Monster.
The Slaughter of the Innocents
So when, in his late, paranoid phase, the magi show up and ask, "Where is he that is born king of the Jews?" what is Herod going to do?
He's going to freak out.
It's no surprise that Matthew writes:
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him [1:3].
You bet all Jerusalem was troubled!
They knew the lengths Herod would go to in his efforts to protect his throne from rival claimants.
So if he couldn't find the infant he was looking for, Herod wiping out the baby boys in Bethlehem and its surrounding areas in order to eliminate a potential rival is completely plausible.
He was willing to kill his own sons when he thought they threatened his throne, and he was willing to conduct widespread massacres for the sake of his own vanity, as we've seen.
The slaughter of the innocents is totally in keeping with Herod's character.
The Record We Have
So what record do we have of this event?
Matthew's Gospel.
It's true that we don't have an independent record, but that's true for a great number of things in the ancient world. So much ancient literature has been lost that often only one record survives.
And when that record is consistent with other things we know--like Herod's bloodthirsty and paranoid character--there is no reason to distrust it.
What Matthew says about Herod sounds exactly like the Herod we know.
The idea that the gospels are "false until proven true" is nonsense.
Even if one does not come at this issue from a perspective of faith, one should be willing to acknowledge that the gospels can and do contain historical information that matches with what we know of their times.
To discount what Matthew says just because we don't have an independent record would be to ignore credible historical evidence.
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Great post, JA! On top of this was something I’ve read was pretty common practice in the ancient world. As a result of a king marrying many women to form alliances with other kingdoms and having lots of concubines, the king sired many sons. When he died, there was a mad rush for one of those sons to gain the kingdom. The successful one then killed all his rival brothers and half-brothers to secure his throne.
Very interesting info, Jimmy. Love your line: “The idea that the gospels are ‘false until proven true’ is nonsense.” So many folks nowadays are skeptical about faith issues, but will believe utter nonsense if proclaimed by such noted historians as Lady Gaga and Joe Biden. God bless! www.MerryCatholic.com
So, did Herod’s successor actually follow through and kill all those men at his death that they had rounded up?
I’m really enjoying your Christmas posts about the credibility of different parts of the Christmas story!! Are the Magi up next? :P
You write, “Herod was a Jew”, but my research shows that isn’t as true as Herod wanted it to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_great [an Edomite, q.v.]
“Herod was practicing Judaism, as many Edomites and Nabateans had been commingled with the Jews and adopted their customs”
He was a Jewish wannabe who did this for political reasons; it made him appear more palatable to the Judeans over whom he was a client king.
Probably the best proof of this is the Biblical record, which bears on your topic.
“And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.” They quoted Mic 5:1 to him, which he should have known. The so-called wise men also should have known this if they were wise in a Godly way. Instead, their “star” led them to the arch-enemy of Jesus. Their good intentions would have killed Jesus without Jehovah’s intervention. The slaughter of the innocents was what Herod’s spin doctors might have called collateral damage.
As a side note, in contrast to many of the “manger scenes” displayed at this time of the year, the Magi “adored” a child “from two years old and under, according to the time which [Herod] had diligently enquired of the wise men.”
@Marcy, fortunately for the prisoners, Herod’s son Archilaus and sister Salome did not carry out this wish according to Josephus’ The Antiquities of the Jews Book 17, Chapter 8, Verse 193
Doug, I don’t disagree with your comment, but please do note that wikipedia is not a credible source. I know it’s easy for internet reseach, but I’d recommend it only as a starting point, if one must use it at all!
Doug, Emily is right. Wikipedia is not reliable source, anybody can go to wikipedia and write there own information that comes up to there mind even person with 12 grader IQ like me can do it, thats why many serious professors at universities when the assign research homework to there students they remind them not to state there reference from wikipedia.org and even if you do that and they find out that you show reference from wikipidea.org your research paper will appear automatically in the trash and on one big F will appear magically on you record. I am telling you brother that happened to me “I have been there,done that,got the diploma and the t-shirt” Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone!
I’ve also read that Bethlehem wasn’t exactly a bustling metropolis, so as few as twenty infants could have been killed (rather than hundreds or thousands often imagined), in which case it would hardly have been newsworthy at the time. It would have been horrific for the townspeople and neighboring towns, but would hardly have shaken the empire.
Indeed it is “a starting point”. I have more and better information on my Watchtower CD, but somehow I doubt that’s what you had in mind. :-)
Any encyclopedia should tell you the same thing. My point in mentioning it is that this is one way in which the story of Jesus’ first two years of life is quite different from the “Christmas culture” of the western world. And, given the Pope’s lead to Catholics in acquiring more accurate knowledge of the subject. Leads to better worship, no?
Related: The simple Jewish shepherds got their information from an angel [messenger] of God, which information was (a)timely (b)accurate (c)useful and (d)put the infant and family at no risk. Contrast that with the record of the “wise men”, who got their information from ... Well, it doesn’t say, does it? The Source led them to follow a “star”, with the results I noted earlier. Yet the Magi and the “star” are considered “good guys” in the Xmas stories. Go figure. What do you figure?
Anna: “as few as twenty infants”. How will that play in Connecticut?
“Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”
You’re correct; then and now Bethlehem is a small town. In fact it’s noted at all because two kings were born there.
Are you aware that Micah’s prophecy about the town (5:1) was amazingly specific? I don’t know what wikipedia says :-) but your Church should have something on it. It’s one of those items that may well get an unbeliever interested in the Bible, which so many think is a book of myths.
Jimmy: Nothing lately about the eyes. How’s the vision problem going for you?
Macrobius speaks about children under two as well?
Cum audisset inter pueros quos in Syria Herodes rex Iudaeorum intra bimatum iussit interfici filium quoque eius occisum, ait: Melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium.
When he heard that Herod king of the Jews in Syria among the boys, whom he had ordered to be put to death within two years of age, even his son had been slain, he said: It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son. 12
many liberal nowadays will say anything to discredit the BIBLE AND GOD. They say the flood is a myth, althought the ark was already discovered some yeas ago, and throught television documentaries they have been distorting all historian facts…The BBC is expert is doing this, and heir BBC 4 is relentless in it’s anti-christian bigotry…...
The media has always been bias so no wonder millions of people have been properly brainwashed into believing in heresies and errors….the cruzades were bad, he inquisition killed million, the vatican and the pope are rich and so on..I head them all before….thing is, they will never been able to fully destroy catholicism cos Jesus promised that not even the gates of hell would prevail..so let them bark !!!
I’m not questioning the slaughter of the Holy Innocents, but Josephus kind of had a reputation equivalent to the ancient version of the tabloid newspaper.
I agree with you and to the liberals I’d also add the pseudo-Christians that publish their own self serving propaganda to discredit the Holy Trinity, the Mother of God, the apostolic succession, the Pope, the Magisterium and the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It’s amazing how these adherents always follow us around to try to justify their founder’s Protestantism.
my previous comment is my response to Luis…
Luis…they discovered the ark? I think you need to check your sources.
Doug, The other source of your info, the Watchtower CD, is also as bad as or worse than wikipedia. I, personally, have a problem with anything published by your source that’s clearly manipulative to lead the adherents of the sect founded by Charles Taze Russell as their self serving pseudo-Christian miss-interpretations. As you know, your New World Translation as well as all the material printed and published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society at their Brooklyn, NY printing facility is geared to maintain the adherents isolated from the Truth about the Holy Trinity, the Mother of God, the apostolic succession and the Petrine doctrine of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, etc. You know that the material printed by the Watchtower sect does not name the source or the writer’s names, qualifications, ecclesiastical authority, etc. My qualifications are a high school diploma and I assure that I would never attempt to hide the Truth in any of my writings yet the hierarchy of the Watchtower sect feels it’s necessary not to disclose their sources. I wonder why…
Felix Rivera:
“Holy Trinity, the Mother of God, the apostolic succession and the Petrine doctrine of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” are where in your Catholic Bible? Dogmas, yes; Bible no. ‘The Bible we Catholics gave you!!!!’ you folks always tell me. :-)
All your complaints are old ones, proven false, and betray your lack of actual knowledge of Jehovah’s earthly organization. Try jw.org, then get back to me.
“Brooklyn, NY printing facility” No such thing. :-)
Hovhannes:
“Wikipedia is not reliable source”. As I noted it’s not my primary source for anything, except: quick reference for things like dates of events and people, name spellings and such.
It happens that the W. entry on Herod the Great was full enough and accurate enough to make a reply. I don’t have internet at home, so I work online in public libraries. For myself I use encyclopedias and such when available. FYI I’m a substitute teacher, and I tell the kids NOT to use wikipedia on any online references; ‘use the encyclopedia’, which they have in the same “Media Center”. (Remember libraries?) The regular teachers don’t back that up, however.
And a better reply would have been, ‘Here’s where Wiki was wrong; here’s my correct information.’ No such reply, so let’s communicate about the OP instead of the ad hominem stuff. Try jw.org next time.
You related to the composer?
Doug, I knew from the get go that you are an adherent of the sect founded by Charles Taze Russell and I was correct when I made the comment about you having the need to follow us into our forums to make a fool of yourself. Here again you ask the famous question “Where is that in the Bible”. I am sure you are not going to find it in the self serving New World Translation you use because as I said that book is published by unknown sources in the hierarchy of your sect with the sole intention of manipulating their adherents into never finding the Truth. I don’t have to tell you that God created the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that by the power of God it will withstand all the forces of evil including the sect of Charles Taze Russel. Now, I ask you, why do you come to a Catholic forum? Do you really think we are going to buy into your sect’s pyramid scheme?
If the slaughter of innocents in Connecticut can happen, I don’t see why the slaughter of innocents in the Bible couldn’t have happened.
.
I don’t know why you Catholics have such a problem with the stories of mass murder in the Bible. It’s your nature.
@Felix (4:48 p.m.)
Matt.28:19-20 is a biblical source for the doctrine of the Trinity. You may find other NT sources consistent with the Catholic Church’s teachings if you look for them.
TeaPot562
Nancy, are we on the same page here? Please read the article again… you are twisting things around a bit. We Catholics believe and matter of fact in our Liturgy of the Word about the Holy Innocents we read Matthew 2:13-15. Why do you say? “I don’t know why you Catholics have such a problem with the stories of mass murder in the Bible.” and then open yourself to expose the hatred in your heart when you say that “It’s your nature”.
Herod died in 4/5 BC. The Census of Luke was in 6 AD. The killing of babies and chasing of Jesus’ family away leaves and incongruous at least ten, more like twelve, year gap when the claims should be concurrent.
.
The Magi most certainly appear to be ahistorical. Without them, Herod cannot enter the story. Without the magi turning up and shouting around Jerusalem “Has anyone seen the new Messiah?” (itself an unlikely thing) and alerting Herod, we would have had no Herod, no massacring of the babies and no reason for Joseph and family to flee to Egypt.
.
Given this whole, rather high-profile set of events, involving scribes, the king and important foreigners parading through Jerusalem, we hear nothing about this from any other source.
.
There is nothing about this from any other Gospel, or even later in Matthew. There is no connection made to these events when Jesus returns late in his ministry, to Jerusalem. No scribes reference this, nothing, from no one. No one connects the fact that 30 years before, a prophecy had been discovered (apparently heretofore unknown) that Jesus would be the Messiah and the King went around with soldiers murdering babies. No one in Jerusalem seems to have the slightest idea who Jesus was or that the Messiah was prophesied and acted upon by the authorities and army, unsuccessfully.
.
There is no evidence, extra-biblically or otherwise, for Herod’s slaughter of the innocents. Contextual historical evidence shows the purported actions claimed by Matthew to be highly improbable.
.
The idea that the gospels are “false until proven true” is nonsense.
.
The idea that the Gospels are anything like historical facts is nonsense.
Nancy, you are really all messed up and let me tell you that no matter how hard you try there is really no way you are going to be able to change our tradition and over 2000 years of history in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Others have tried it and they have failed miserably. First you accuse us of not believing the mass murder stories in the Bible. And now you try to tell us we should not believe the Holy Innocents mass murder by Herod. Would you kindly give us the source where you found that entire diatribe that according to you prove that Herod could not have killed the Holy Innocents?
TeaPot562, Thanks… I’m well aware of Matthew 28:18-19. The problem is that the pseudo-Christian sect created by Charles Taze Russell that Doug is pushing here have gone as far as printing their very own self serving New World Translation so that their adherents only read their self serving interpretations that are convenient for their evil purposes.
Can somebody, in God’s Name, tell me what these Catholic Haters come to do in the Catholic Websites????? We do not go to theirs….we do not disparage their beliefs….can they, please, Dear God, do us a favour and let us be. Respect our Divine Beliefs as we respect yours. Surely, is that too much to ask?????
But then Jesus warned us a long time ago while He was still around this God’s Earth. “If they rejected Me, they will reject you too”. Have a Blessed Year 2013, my beloved Children of our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
My Felix—you are paranoid! What makes you think I want to change your traditions or spoil you celebration of historical mass murder?
.
You can just add Sandy Hook to your list of celebrations. God let Adam Lanza kill all those innocents just as he let Herod kill your “Holy Innocents.”
.
Proof of God’s existence that I can’t refute.
.
And if something can’t be assumed false until it’s been “proven true,” Mitt Romney won the 2012 election.
Nancy, I wish you would tell me why you have so much hatred in your heart; I assure you I’d be your best of friends and try to help you. You are obviously coming to this Catholic forum seeking help; but we need you to open up your heart to Jesus and let Him in; I assure you your outlook in Life will be so much different and you will begin to feel human again like when God put you in your mom’s womb. Something has happened to you; please don’t blame God for that.
We do not go to theirs….we do not disparage their beliefs….can they, please, Dear God, do us a favour and let us be. Respect our Divine Beliefs as we respect yours. Surely, is that too much to ask?????
.
Oh, Puleeeze!
.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/you-and-your-heathen-friend/
.
http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Pope-attacks-secular-Britain-as-being-like-Nazi-Germany.aspx
.
http://wonkette.com/472399/catholic-church-investigating-new-threat-to-humanity-the-girl-scouts
.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/12/28/catholic-cardinals-short-of-christmas-cheer/
.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/practical-atheism-more-destructive-than-disbelief-pope-says/
.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/why-secular-culture-is-afraid-of-life
.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/fr.-robert-barron-on-obamas-secular-totalitarianism
.
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/15989/
.
And there’s plenty more hatred for non-Catholics on this site alone
Felix—I got the same kind of answer when I refused to buy drugs from a stranger.
By the way—my father put me in my mom’s womb—and he wasn’t God by any means.
Nancy, ...but you believe in God because you can’t refute His existence. Please tell me where does that leave you as far as knowing that God does exist but that you believe that God “let Adam Lanza kill all those innocents just as he let Herod kill your “Holy Innocents.” Any reasonable human being can very well conclude, given everything you have told us that you blame God for doing or allowing to happen, that God made a mistake when he allowed your dad and mom to become one to procreate you? I don’t think so and I know God has a purpose for you; even with your rebellious intransigence you will one day Love the God that knew you as a baby in your mom’s womb.
Nancy, oh, I forgot… it wasn’t just your dad that put you in your mom’s womb. Your dad is not God and procreation can only take place when man and woman become one in union.
My parents procreated by having sex with each other. I’ll bet that’s how your parents procreated too.
.
I’m also sure that the “Virgin” Mary had sex so that she could give birth to Jesus.
.
Just because you think I believe in God doesn’t mean I do. How can I be angry at something that does not exist?
.
I can believe anything I want and not wait until it’s proven true.
Nancy,...but you believe in God because you can’t refute His existence.
.
You can’t refute the existence of Zeus, Thor, Pele, Krishna, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by its noodly appendage!) either. Do you believe in them?
.
The only things that joined in union at my conception was my father’s sperm and my mother’s egg. God had nothing to do with it.
Nancy, you are the one that made disparaging comments that blame God for the Newton tragedy which you consider irrefutable proof of His existence. And I did say that any reasonable person can thus deduct from your statement that you believe in God. Now you go back in your own words and admit that you don’t believe in God. You see you have a twisted and confused mind and… you are just like the other anti-Catholics that comes to this Catholic forum to serve evil purposes and I did tell you that for more than 2000 years others have tried it before you and have failed miserably. You are evil and you are not going too far with your hatred of God. Also, you must be down in the gutter and very depressed to demean yourself and your parents the way you do. It is so demeaning to say “My parents procreated me by having sex with each other”. I don’t think you realize what you are saying.
I’m sorry, sarcasm doesn’t come across. I’ll remember to label which of my responses are sarcasm next time.
.
And I did say that any reasonable person can thus deduct from your statement that you believe in God.
.
The idea that you are a reasonable person is another idea that needs to be proven true.
.
Why do you think it’s degrading for my parents to have sex? Or was your conception immaculate like the “virgin” Mary’s?
.
I do realize what I’m saying.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFrVmDgh4v4
.
I hope you have sense enough to skip the annoying advertising before the presentation. Watch all of it—you might learn.
Nancy, do you really expect me to watch a youtube clip on fertilization/conception? Now… I need to ask you what age bracket are you? No need to be specific, of course and I understand if you don’t feel this is necessary. I am going to tell you I am in the age bracket of 50 to 70 years old, I have 3 children and 3 grandchildren and married to the same wonderful and God loving wife for 41 years. This I tell you so you know that I am fully aware of our God given blessing to procreate. Now, that I know you don’t believe in God I can see the reason for your attitude, however, the question still remains why do you feel compel to come to this Catholic forum to expose your hatred for God, our Blessed Mother and Our Church. You don’t believe in God yet you come here… why?
Well, you have 3 children, so you’ve had sex at least 3 times; and you have 3 grandchildren, so at least one of your children had sex. Is writing that degrading you, your wife and your children?
.
You haven’t replied to my previous question:
.
You can’t refute the existence of Zeus, Thor, Pele, Krishna, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by its noodly appendage!) either. Do you believe in them?
.
I wouldn’t mind your “faith” in illusions, but Catholic beliefs are interfering with my Constitutional rights and it pisses me off. I’m angry at Catholics.
Nancy,
I hope that you had a very Merry Christmas.
Could you please explain, with specifics, just how “Catholic beliefs are interfering with [your] Constitutional rights”?
Unless, you were referring to the fact that the Constitution of the United States of America, as originally written, was completely based on God’s Natural Law & the Law of Nations?
Have a blessed Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God (Jan. 1st), by the way.
Thank you—I enjoyed the Winter Solstice.
.
Seventeen states still have a law which states you must believe in God to maintain public office of any kind despite the excerpt from the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Section III: ”… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Nearly all states Constitutions has a clause which thanks of states that God created the world.
.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions2.htm
.
Some judges consider atheism to be a sufficient reason for denying custody to a parent during custody hearings.
.
Atheists face many forms of employment discrimination, ranging from differential hiring practices to wrongful termination. A school district in Texas went so far as to refuse to do business with an atheist.
.
In addition to widespread anti-atheist bigotry in the U.S. military, there are reports of institutionalized discrimination designed to quash complaints made by atheists who dare to speak out.
.
The mainstream media in the U.S. regularly excludes atheists, even from stories about atheism, while giving voice to religious believers.
.
George Bush Sr. said atheists should not allowed to be citizens
.
Boy Scouts (or EHarmony) not allowing atheists or homosexuals into their club.
.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nicolebrodeur/2018209547_nicole15m.html
.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/12/07/atheist-resigns-from-west-point-due-to-anti-atheist-discrimination-and-promotion-of-religion/
.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/12/28/catholic-priest-women-are-abused-because-they-dress-provocatively-and-dont-cook-warm-meals-anymore/
Nancy, You must be aware that only 3 of our 204 founding fathers were Catholics. Now, think about it… you blame Catholics for interfering with your Constitutional rights? Are you saying that 3 Catholics had so much influence on the other 201 for you to blame us for your failures as an atheist? There has to be more than that to make you so angry and hateful. The fact that there weren’t any atheists within the 204 is your problem and it’s unfair for you to blame us for that.
I can see from the list of links you provide that you only read what suits your atheist mind. Would you kindly read the following in light of the fact that we seem to agree on at least one thing that has to do with my belief that God our creator gives woman and man the capability to procreate; while in your own words your mom and dad had sex and at the moment of conception you were created. BTW, you know that you can count on us Catholics to defend your atheist life; and we will go as far as going against our own government to defend the sanctity of your life. I pray that you come to your senses and open your heart and stop being so angry at us. One day you might very well need us and we will be there for you.
From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way because man is the only creature on earth that God has “wished for himself” and the spiritual soul of each man is “immediately created” by God; his whole being bears the image of the Creator. Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves “the creative action of God” and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being. Human procreation requires on the part of the spouses responsible collaboration with the fruitful love of God; the gift of human life must be actualized in marriage through the specific and exclusive acts of husband and wife, in accordance with the laws inscribed in their persons and in their union.
Felix—I’m very impressed! You can write so much without any purpose whatsoever! You’d make a great politician.
.
Will you answer the question I directed to you, instead of answering for Nick? I’ll copy them again, so you can focus:
.
Well, you have 3 children, so you’ve had sex at least 3 times; and you have 3 grandchildren, so at least one of your children had sex. Is writing that degrading you, your wife and your children?
.
and
.
You can’t refute the existence of Zeus, Thor, Pele, Krishna, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by its noodly appendage!) either. Do you believe in them?
.
Can you refute the links I pasted?
.
Nancy, you expect me to respond to every nonsensical question you can dream of? You are the one that made contradicting statements about God’s existence. First you said you believe God existed because the killings in Newton were “irrefutable proof of His existence. Then you come out clean and contradict yourself by admitting to be an atheist. All of this resulted in my calling you confused and depressed and for that I ask your understanding that I am human and not perfect and I implore your forgiveness. I am going to end our exchange by telling you that the act by which your mom and dad consummated your God given life and creation was a beautiful thing that produced the human being you are today. May you one day seek and find the truth of your existence which I know was not the result of “a big bang theory?” God is merciful and forgiving! Have a good night.
“Nearly all states [sic] Constitutions has [sic] a clause which thanks of states [sic] that God created the world.”
<
Apparently, Nancy, you are unaware of how our constitution, or federalism, works. And, as is typical of most atheists, you don’t know the definition of the word religion, as it was used by the Founders in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Stating a belief in God is not the same as declaring a religion. Religion refers to a creed, sect, or denomination. So, Congress could not make a law denying Methodists a public office of trust under the United States. Or, Catholics & Jews.
The Several States, however, could have such religious tests. Because the religious test clause only pertained to the federal government.
By the way, the Tennessee constitution also denies public office to “Ministers of the Gospel,” “priests,” and those who duel!
http://www.tncrimlaw.com/law/constit/IX.html
<
Unfortunately, all of your typing did not produce one example of how our “Catholic beliefs are interfering with [your] Constitutional rights.” As Mr. Rivera so aptly pointed out.
I eagerly await a reply to my inquiry. Not a diatribe on how atheist’s rights are supposedly abused in our society.
(Especially, when atheistic groups, like the ACLU, are responsible for violating the free-speech & free-exercise rights of Americans, repeatedly, over the past several decades.)
Nancy,
My reply is coming. It was flagged as spam.
Arguing with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. You knock the pieces over, $hit all over the board and strut around thinking you won.
“Nearly all states [sic] Constitutions has [sic] a clause which thanks of states [sic] that God created the world.”
<
Apparently, Nancy, you are unaware of how our constitution, or federalism, works. And, as is typical of most atheists, you don’t know the definition of the word religion, as it was used by the Founders in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Stating a belief in God is not the same as declaring a religion. Religion refers to a creed, sect, or denomination. So, Congress could not make a law denying Methodists a public office of trust under the United States. Or, Catholics & Jews.
The Several States, however, could have such religious tests. Because the religious test clause only pertained to the federal government.
By the way, the Tennessee constitution also denies public office to “Ministers of the Gospel,” “priests,” and those who duel!
Unfortunately, all of your typing did not produce one example of how our “Catholic beliefs are interfering with [your] Constitutional rights.” As Mr. Rivera so aptly pointed out.
I eagerly await a reply to my inquiry. Not a diatribe on how atheist’s rights are supposedly abused in our society.
(Especially, when atheistic groups, like the ACLU, are responsible for violating the free-speech & free-exercise rights of Americans, repeatedly, over the past several decades.)
I split my original reply into two separate posts, which worked.
It would be nice, Nancy, if you addressed the person to whom you are replying by name, in the future.
Here is the link to the Tennessee law:
http://www.tncrimlaw.com/law/constit/IX.html
Apparently, Nick, you still don’t get it.
.
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.
.
What part of the above statement from the Tennessee Constitution don’t you understand?
.
As to my previous comment, it applies to both you and Felix.
.
Give an example of how your free speech has been violated with the interference of the ACLU—when the Catholic Church was not violating the separation of church and state.
Nancy, all along during our conversation you gave me plenty of signals that described the kind of person you are, yet I figured let me give you the benefit of the doubt and now you come with that last childish comment and you expect us to take you seriously and respond to every one of your problems? You have a lot of problems that the only way you can get any satisfaction is to unite all your atheists’ friends and go fight to change the constitutions of all the states you claim are discriminating against your hate for God.
BTW, you still have not proved how the Catholic Church discriminates against your atheist views although you have said “The mainstream media in the U.S. regularly excludes atheists, even from stories about atheism, while giving voice to religious believers”. Your statement makes me wonder if you really think that the American mainstream media favors Catholics; cause if you do you are dead wrong. The Catholic Church matter of fact is always under attack from secular people in mainstream media that represent atheist and protestant views. Heck!, we are under attack right here on this forum by atheists like yourself that come here to cry foul and complain that we discriminate against atheists.
There is one more thing you might have the answer… I always wonder about how exactly mankind really came about, although, I Obviously believe Our God the Creator in 7 days made it all happen and He was happy with the results. Atheists are steadfast in their belief that ‘it was a big bang” that cause things to materialize and mankind was one of those “things” that gradually developed from who knows what to up to what we are today. One thing for sure is our ability to “discern and think” that most scientists fall miserably short when they try to explain it. I’d like you to use that which distinguishes us from the animal kingdom “your ability to think and discern” and please explain how do you, the scientists and “the big bang” put it altogether to make it work. We know we can successfully transplant various organs like the heart, kidneys, human tissue, etc. but what we have not been able to do is to create those same personal feelings and those mysterious “things” that make you a perfect but different human that can not be duplicated.
I always wonder about how exactly mankind really came about, although, I Obviously believe Our God the Creator in 7 days made it all happen and He was happy with the results. Atheists are steadfast in their belief that ‘it was a big bang” that cause things to materialize and mankind was one of those “things” that gradually developed from who knows what to up to what we are today. One thing for sure is our ability to “discern and think” that most scientists fall miserably short when they try to explain it. I’d like you to use that which distinguishes us from the animal kingdom “your ability to think and discern” and please explain how do you, the scientists and “the big bang” put it altogether to make it work. We know we can successfully transplant various organs like the heart, kidneys, human tissue, etc. but what we have not been able to do is to create those same personal feelings and those mysterious “things” that make you a perfect but different human that can not be duplicated.
.
I am not Richard Dawkins or any other advanced scientist, and I am not obliged to explain human evolution to you. I think it’s incredibly naive and stupid of you to take the mythical creation story of one religion as history. (7-days?!? Puleeze! Do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old too?)
.
Since you accuse me of visiting only sites that suit me, I dare you to look at a few that probably won’t suit you:
.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/human-brains-evolved-for-social-competition
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400_1.html
.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
.
.
Judging from your blind belief in the ridiculous creation hypothesis, I don’t really think you will look at any of these web sites in earnest. Learning is obviously too much of an effort for you.
.
By the way, humans are far from perfect.
.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Top-Ten-Daily-Consequences-of-Having-Evolved.html
My reply was under my other moniker—“True Democrat” and marked as spam. It may come up soon. (Felix)
“Apparently, Nick, you still don’t get it.”
I didn’t know I was supposed to get anything, Nancy. I asked you a very simple question, which you still have not answered, by the way.
Is that all you’ve got? Atheists are supposed to argue better than this. At least some of the ones I’ve seen in the past. Except that awful Dawkins fellow. He couldn’t argue his way out of a paper bag!
<
“What part of the above statement from the Tennessee Constitution don’t you understand?”
I understand it perfectly well. What part of my statement don’t you understand? Besides being ignorant of the plain meaning of our constitution? I didn’t deny the “belief in God” provision. Is English your second language? Try reading what I wrote again, slowly this time.
<
“Give an example of how your free speech has been violated with the interference of the ACLU—when the Catholic Church was not violating the separation of church and state.”
How about answering my question first, huh? And, I never claimed that my free speech had been violoated. Again, read more carefully next time. (The words <i>separation of church and state aren’t in the Constitution of the United States of America, for your information. So, the Catholic Church has violated nothing. Care to try again?)
But, since you have no google skills, here is just one of many cases:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/05/indiana-school-fighting-school-prayer/
I’m tired of playing chess with pigeons.
“I’m tired of playing chess with pigeons.”
Because all you have are pawns in your arsenal, Nancy. That means that you have no cogent arguments to make. Only insults and ad hominem. Which is typical for atheists.
Checkmate.
And God Bless!
The article gives no evidence that the M of the Is ever took place. St. Matthew - one should not have to make what should be a painfully obvious point - cannot be an witness to the historical accuracy of St. Matthew. It is not even clear that he intended to write history. As for Herod the Great being a “Total. Moral. Monster.”, that is absurd & unjust - he was in a very difficult position, ruling over a people who hated him because he was an Edomite as well as an appointee of Rome (an occupying power with its own gods); and his position as a client king depended on his ability to keep the Jews from being at each other’s throats - the later Maccabean rulers after 104 to 63 BC (when Pompey entered the Most Holy Place) had constant trouble with the murderous enmity between the Pharisees & the Sadducces, & lost their independence & their throne partly as a result. Herod’s father Antipater had been poisoned, and Herod’s reign was troubled both by treason in his own family and by a number of false Messiahs. He would have been an irresponsible fool not to repress such threats; a weak king would have been a very bad choice for his Roman masters, who wanted stability on their borders, not unrest or rebellion (see 66 AD for when the Jews did rebel). The severity of a strong king was all that prevented the Jews losing what relative independence they had. After Herod’s death, the Jews had no kings until Herod Agrippa, a generation later.
Oh, my dear Nick, just give up on Nancy. You shall never penetrate her head with your very reasonable and coherent responses. She is what she is for very unfortunate circumstances in her life. Something terrible must have hurt her very deeply and destabilized her. So what she needs are Prayers, unceasing Prayers because she is in big, big trouble, emotionally, phsycologically and mentally. We can only hazard a guess why she hates the Catholic Church with such virulent intensity.
Mary,
You are completely right, of course.
Nancy needs many prayers, and she is certainly in mine.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas and are blessed with a very Happy New Year, along with your family.
God Bless!
I just do not understand why, in the midst of a discussion, Christians quote scripture at non-Christians.
Surely they know that since I am not a Christian that their scriptural quote will mean absolutely nothing to me. Is this something they throw out there because they have no reason, logic, evidence, or factual information to use to promote their position?
Are they unable to put themselves in the shoes of others? I mean, if I were to quote verses to them from books they don’t believe in like the Koran, the Bhagavad Ghita, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, don’t they realize they would be exactly as impressed as I am by them quoting biblical scripture?
Q. “Why?”
A. Lurkers. Few if any who post on these blogs are interested in discussion. They are the choir that Jimmy and others preach to, or they’re ‘Catholic haters’ like Nancy. But others drop by looking for spiritual help in a crazy world. (Some sites show the numbers ‘logged in’ and ‘visitors’ at any given moment.) IOW they are likely to be “as sheep not having a shepherd.” And what did Jesus do at those moments? “He had compassion on them ... and he began to teach them many things.” Unlike nominally Christian bloggers and most respondents, I follow this standard to the limit of my imperfect ability: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” That doctrine, in turn, I get from the Bible, also called by some “The Word of God”.
Thanks to you folks there is a great opportunity to compare that, side by side as it were, with comments that ‘ transgress the commandment of God for their tradition’.
Jason writes, “I just do not understand why, in the midst of a discussion, Christians quote scripture at non-Christians.”
Good point; the answer (mine, at least) is that two decades of personal experience have taught me that scripture is of more use to me than man’s wisdom, of which I’ve studied my share. You of course disagree, for which YOU GONNA BURN IN ... Sorry, that just slipped out. :-) (Some posters here will tell you I’m heretical because I don’t believe in hellfire either. True: it’s illegal under the Constitution.)
Anyway, here’s a scientific quote, if you’re interested: “He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing.” That’s from a clergyman named Newton, I think.
Another: “Your eyes did see my imperfect being, and in your book all shall be written: days shall be formed, and no one in them.” That’s from an oriental king of some years ago. A more modern edition of his works says, “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them.” When I’m teaching biology I sometimes cite that as an excellent brief, plain-language description of the change in the womb from fertilized cell to blastula to differentiated embryo, all driven by DNA. Or maybe it’s from Honest Jim Watson.
Doug—
Good point; the answer (mine, at least) is that two decades of personal experience have taught me that scripture is of more use to me than man’s wisdom, of which I’ve studied my share.
/
Evidence against your contempt for “man’s wisdom” is obvious from your comments.
/
It may help (though I doubt it) to look up Newton in the context of the era of his lifetime. He lived when the age of Enlightenment was just beginning and his writings attempt to reconcile scientific observations with his religion.
.
http://www.enlighteningscience.sussex.ac.uk/learning_objects/student/science_and_religion/newton_on_science_and_religion
.
Newton was not the first or last scientist who lived in an era where atheism was abhorrent in general. Human wisdom evolves like everything else.
.
Like many people here, Newton lived in an era where it was dangerous to even consider atheism seriously. Yet he used his own observations for his scientific work, and had to develop radical views of religion to reconcile faith in the Bible with reality.
/
Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic.
.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton’s_religious_views#cite_note-heretic-9
.
http://www.isaac-newton.org/heretic.pdf
.
I hope your biology students know the difference between Creationism and real science—for their sake.
Oriental kings are not notable for their knowledge of science either. Since their position depends on the concept of “divine right” they are likely to favor religion.
.
Can you come up with a non-biased quote?
Jason:
Back when I was in your position Newton was one of my “gods”. Probably Wikipedia has shown you that, like many in his day, he acquired a divinity degree, used it to acquire a “preferment” or similar for a nice, comfortable country parish, then used his spare time to follow his real interest- science in his case. Being the man he was, though, he did his religion as thoroughly as he did everything else. (I’ve been told he wrote more about religion than about science.) He discovered that a famous passage in the KJV and the contemporaneous Douay- the Johannine Comma- was fraudulent. Since this is the only direct statement of the Trinity doctrine in any Bible, he further realized that the Trinity is a non-Biblical doctrine, therefore false. That makes him, and me, heretics in the eyes of the mainstream Churches. He didn’t have the stones to go public with this because it would have cost him his living, so he’s not my god anymore. Unless you absolutely break out in hives when exposed to a Bible, please look up Mark 8:38, Luke 3:17 and Romans 1:16, which are relevant to our subject. Also see Gibbon’s Decline and Fall for a lengthy appendix on the controversy when Gibbon reported on Newton and the Comma in that work.
Anyway, my attribution to Newton was tongue-in-cheek. He discovered, or rather proved, that the earth hangs freely in space upon ‘nothing observable’, i.e. gravity. The quote was from the Bible book of Job, which was written long before the oldest parts of the Bible were put down. (It’s believed it was transcribed by Moses from an earlier writing or from an oral history. IN ANY CASE it long predates any sort of scientific knowledge of celestial forces.) Compare that with “man’s wisdom”- myths- of the time. Speaking of which, if the Bible is myth then Job 26:7 should not be in any book that old- but there it is. Scientists understand this point, so I’m sure you will, too. The “oriental king” I quoted was David, who was indeed (thus sayeth the Bible) appointed by divine right (i.e. Jehovah’s word). Again, you’ll recognize that his description of human development was more accurate than it should have been. But he in turn said ‘it was Jehovah that spoke by me.’
Please give more consideration to Job and David’s comments on science. If you see some merit in them I have more for you. If not, go back to your “Catholic bashing”, as they see it. :-) Also, several other of your comments make assumptions about me that are not accurate, but that’s not important at this point.
Doug—didn’t anyone ever tell you that just because a thought is old does not mean it’s true? The statues of Egyptian Gods are ancient—do those gods exist also? The Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest known literature in history—do Ishtar and Marduk exist?
.
If you like the Book of Job, I think Gilgamesh is far superior in describing the human situation:
.
You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.
.
Isn’t it blasphemous to consider Newton “god?” What made you loose faith in him?
.
Why are you teaching biology when you obviously should be teaching the Bible?
Well, Doug, it looks like my reply didn’t pass the “spam” filter.
.
You might want to read my first post again—Why should I care what was “said” by King David?
.
IN ANY CASE it long predates any sort of scientific knowledge of celestial forces.) Compare that with “man’s wisdom”- myths- of the time. Speaking of which, if the Bible is myth then Job 26:7 should not be in any book that old- but there it is. Scientists understand this point, so I’m sure you will, too.
.
Why is other mythology of the time “man’s wisdom” and Judeo-Christian mythology “better than ‘man’s wisdom’?” In any case, mythology is not science, which deals with reality.
.
But if you want mythology that predates the Bible, look up the Epic of Gilgamesh—the oldest known literature in history:
.
You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.
.
Do you really teach biology? You’re students are going to be shocked when they flunk the SAT tests.
Doug,
The only “god” you should have in your life is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 28:19).
Not any man.
God Bless!
Jason,
You complain (without examples, I might add) that Christians quote the Bible in nebulous discussions with atheists & will not put themselves in your shoes.
Physician heal thyself. (I got that from the Bible, by the way.)
Why do atheists quote other atheists to support their positions, e.g., Voltaire, Darwin, Dawkins, etc.?
If I can’t use the books that I believe in and you can’t use the books that you believe in, how are we supposed to begin a conversation?
Besides, do you even know how the Catholic Church teaches Her members to read the Holy Scriptures?
God Bless!
You complain (without examples, I might add) that Christians quote the Bible in nebulous discussions with atheists & will not put themselves in your shoes.
.
You have provided my examples.
.
Why do atheists quote other atheists to support their positions, e.g., Voltaire, Darwin, Dawkins, etc.?
.
Touche! The difference is that Voltaire, Darwin, Dawkins, etc., have evidence independent of their work. The evidence can be repeated, and the opinions can be challenged and will fail with valid argument.
.
Science may raise questions that can’t be answered, but religion has answers that cannot be questioned. Atheists quote other atheists on Christian sites to challenge valid arguments from Christians. Usually Christians end up just telling us to shut up because they have no valid argument.
.
I hope the biology you teach is based on science and not the Bible.
“You have provided my examples.”
Jason,
You are mistaken. I have quoted no passages of Sacred Scripture. (Except, today, when I referenced Matthew 28:19 to Doug.)
“The evidence can be repeated, and the opinions can be challenged and will fail with valid argument.”
They have no evidence. Only conjecture, suppositions, and half-baked theories.
The Catholic Church does not claim to have all the answers, save, that Christ is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. All answers begin and end with Him. But, the Bible is not a science textbook. Nor, is it a complete work of history, although, it contains many historic events. We call it Salvation History, and it’s fascinating. It also contains prayers, poetry, hymns, & theological works.
“I hope the biology you teach is based on science and not the Bible.”
Again, you are mistaken. I do not teach biology. You seem to be confused as to whom you are addressing, among many other things.
I hope that you had a Merry Christmas, and that you enjoy a very Happy New Year, along with your family.
God Bless!
Nick—apparently you are right on one thing—I confused you with Doug, but you can use him as evidence as well. If there were a god that created us in it’s own image, that god isn’t perfect either.
.
The Catholic Church does not claim to have all the answers, save, that Christ is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. All answers begin and end with Him. But, the Bible is not a science textbook. Nor, is it a complete work of history, although, it contains many historic events. We call it Salvation History, and it’s fascinating. It also contains prayers, poetry, hymns, & theological works.
.
And anyone who dares to question the Catholic Church’s assertion that “Christ is the Truth, the Way, and the Life” will be excommunicated and burn in hell. You believe them because you are terrified not to. There are people who practice religions not based on the Judeo-Christian storm god that you worship via the Pope. And there are people who don’t practice any religion (“nones” and atheists).
.
Interesting that you deny that the Bible is not science or a complete work of history—most of the people on this site claim that it is.
.
Is there any science or history that supports your beliefs in “salvation” and Christ as the ONLY way? One of the worst mistakes you can make in life is to attach your identity to any particular religion or philosophy, such as by saying “I am a Christian” or “I am a Buddhist.” This forces your mind into a fixed perspective, robbing you of spiritual depth perception and savagely curtailing your ability to perceive reality accurately.
.
Other religions have very beautiful poetry as well. Don’t you like the quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh I pasted? The poetry and prayers of Judeo-Christian mythology have been derived from earlier religions. You may want to Google for the information.
.
It’s a good thing you don’t teach biology.
.
Thank you, I had a wonderful Solstice celebration and I look forward to the Spring Equinox just as you must look forward to Jesus’ crucifixion celebration. We are lucky that the earth is tilted just enough to produce four seasons annually, and I really appreciate the physics involved.
.
I hope you had a Merry Christmas as well, and a Happy New Year. May the body and blood of Christ you receive every Sunday be delicious always!
Nick—my reply is being checked for spam—again I apologize for mistaking you for Doug but you can still use his replies as evidence. I’ll wait awhile to see if my reply gets posted and if not, try again
.
It’s a good thing you don’t teach biology.
.
Blessed are the poor (donate heavily). Blessed are the meek (obey). Blessed are the humble (don’t question authority). Blessed are the hungry (make us rich while you starve). Blessed are the merciful (if you catch us doing something wrong, let it go). Blessed are the pure of heart (switch off your brain). Blessed are the timid, the cowardly, the fearful. Blessed are those who give us their power and become our slaves. Muahahaha!
Oh, I get it—I used a different moniker because I’ve been banned before for making good points and offending Catholics.
.
Just so you know, I am both Jason and True Democrat. I apologize that I drink the “blood of Jesus” myself from time to time. I just know it is fermented grapes.
.
Damn these default settings!
“Just so you know, I am both Jason and True Democrat.”
Are you also “Nancy” my androgynous friend? Since she also posted as “True Democrat”. (The democrat party is the party of death, by the way.)
I’m sorry that you have a drinking problem. But, that sheds much light on your complete butchery of the Beatitudes.
My guess is that I know more about general science than you. (And some specific areas, based on my profession.) Catholics are not afraid of science. I love science & history. Also, Catholics have advanced scientific knowledge for centuries, e.g. English monk Roger Bacon (father of the scientific method), Nicolaus Copernicus, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître (postulated the “Big Bang” theory), and many others.
You are in my prayers Nancy/Jason/True Democrat.
God Bless!
Jason (or, The Poster That Dare Not Speak His Name :-) )
“Judeo-Christian mythology “better than ‘man’s wisdom’?” In any case, mythology is not science, which deals with reality.” My reality is that the earth hangs in space upon nothing; gravity keeps it in place. Newton agrees, do you?
“I hope the biology you teach is based on science and not the Bible.” Indeed it is- except for evolution, a man-made theory. In any case that doesn’t interfere with the education process.
I believe that upcoming events will soon soften your stand against the Bible. When it does, answer your door Saturday morning.
Nick writes,
“The only “god” you should have in your life is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 28:19).”
Yet “God” singular; “FatherSonHolySpirit” plural. And FWIW only two “names” given to support your view of Mt 28:19,20 (which is not as you cited it). Curious.
“Not any man.”
Name, please?
“God Bless!”
He does![not “they do”]
Doug, here we go again… first let me make clear that although I do not consider you a Christian I forgive you for your ignorance and attack on our Christian Faith. You are obviously no Christian because you know very little about the truth of the New and Everlasting Covenant that created Christianity and/or because you have been brainwashed by the publications of the sect you joined to discredit the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that or savior Jesus, The Word of God made flesh, founded Himself and handed to the apostolic successors of Peter.
Here again you are grossly mistaken if you expect us to accept the version of Matthew 28:19 that your self serving New World Translation which was published in 1961 by the sect that Charles Taze Russell founded to indoctrinate the adherents of the Watch Tower sect like yourself.
Here is the true version about the scriptures in Matthew 28:16-20 “16 now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
You see, Doug, your ignorance is the result of reading the publications of the pyramid scheme that Charles Taze Russell founded. You are obviously not following the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and that’s a grave fault of your own.
Felix, your first paragraph is vituperative and ad hominem. I ignore it in line with the command [to me, anyway] at 2 Tim 2:22.
Your second paragraph mentions the ‘self-serving translation/version of Mt 28:19’. Now, THAT we can investigate.
First, your posted “true version”; from which Bible you don’t say. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Second, from the Catholic Douay at newadvent. “Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
Third, from the NIV, mainstream Protestant. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Finally, from the NWT.
WARNING!!! CATHOLICS STOP HERE!!! GET PERMISSION FROM YOUR CATECHIST BEFORE READING FURTHER!!!
“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
Now, to investigate:
Q. Is there a grammarian in the room who can identify the type of sentence the first one is?
Q. Is there a theologian in the room who can find the word “God” in the sentences?
Q. Is there a philologist in the room who can identify the differences in meaning and intent among the translations?
Q. All the texts say, “in the name of”. What is that name and where is it in the Bible?
Q. Or, since we read, “name of [three entities]”, what are their three names and where are they found in the Bible?
Q. From verse 18 (not quoted here), how much authority did Jesus have?
Q. From whom did he get that authority?
Q. I once heard someone in a movie (not about Jesus) cry, “Stop! In the name of the law!” What do you suppose he meant?
will this go through?
“And FWIW only two ‘names’ given to support your view of Mt 28:19,20 (which is not as you cited it).”
Doug,
I’m confused. “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” are THREE in number, not “two”, as you claim. Mr. Rivera has graciously given the exact text of Matthew 28:19. If you read it closely, Christ said, “baptizing them in the NAME of [...].”
That’s “name”, singular, not “names”, plural (onoma in Greek). or, So, Christ is teaching the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in Matthew 28.
“Name, please?”
You previously wrote: “Back when I was in your position Newton was one of my ‘gods’. [...] so he’s not my god anymore.” (Emphasis mine.)
I inferred from these two statements that you might still have other men that you consider “gods”.
Also, I gather from Mr. Rivera’s posts that you are a Jehovah’s Witness, is this correct Doug? If so, do you really believe Christ was really the Archangel Michael? And, that Satan was His brother?
I leave you with Saint John’s opening words:
In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by Him: and without Him was made nothing that was made. 4 In Him was life: and the life was the light of men.
Doug, I know it is much easier for the adherents of Charles Taze Russell to see God in the singular form; that way they can go on with their challenge of the Truth of Catholic Faith and teachings. Keep in mind that Charles Taze Russell’s sect is less than 130 years old while the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that God built and with His authority gave to Peters successors and that, that apostolic continuity has stood the test of times of more than 2000 years. Now, lets hear you take the side of the Jewish high priests, and kindly answer this elemental question, Did Jesus commit blasphemy when He said “I AM”?
Nick, the two names are Jesus (Luke 3:1,38) and Jehovah (Isa 42:8, as seen in any correctly rendered verse as in the NWT, the JB, the ASV and any Hebrew ms. There is no name for the holy spirit, just a title. So the count of literal names is just exactly wrong for the Trinity doctrine, which is why I asked. Not a Trinity proof.
Say, are you the reason I left Detroit? :-)
To you and [unhappy] Felix: I got Q; you got A?
“There is no name for the holy spirit, just a title.”
So, Doug, did Saint Matthew record it wrong, or, did Christ get it wrong? Because, He clearly states to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the [NAME] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Again, Christ uses the singular name (onoma), not names. This is the Blessed Holy Trinity. I find it very hard to believe that Christ’s Church did not accurately record & translate God’s Word for 1,900 years, until Nathan Homer Knorr produced his error-riddled translation in 1950. How is that possible?
“Say, are you the reason I left Detroit?”
I hope not. I don’t recall having any acquaintances named Doug.
Also, I’ll take it from your non-response, that you don’t consider any other men your “gods” anymore, okay?
And, what about my questions? Do you believe that Christ is the Archangel Micheal? Because I can provide passages from Sacred Scripture which state that Jesus Christ is God. I have already provided you with John 1:1, on which you also made no comment.
Have a good weekend.
God Bless!
Doug, one more elemental question for you. Do the Charles Taze Russell’s adherents have a problem with this version of Matthew 28:16-20? “16 now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father Jehovah and of the Son Jesus and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Felix and Nick-I’ve been following and i must thank you for your perseverance and willingness to defend the faith. i remember a poster named ‘gloria’ that seems eerily similar to true democrat/jason/nancy-four -in-one and one-for all!
Thanks, RichT!
I love to defend the Faith.
I just have to remember all of the great teacher’s & apologist’s (Dr. Hahn, Mr. Cavins, Fr. Pacwa, etc.) repeated warnings: We are not trying to win arguments, we are trying to win souls!
And, we are only instruments of God’s plan, if we’re doing it correctly. We can’t convert anyone, the Holy Spirit takes care of that.
Happy New Year and God Bless!
Nick: There’s nothing gracious about Unhappy Felix that I’ve seen.
Originally you said Mt 28 had something to say about “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit”. It does not. It mentions three entities under the word “name”, singular; the word “God” is not there. If there are three persons in one God, then EACH of the persons should have a name. (Is there any important person in your life who doesn’t have a name, with which you’re familiar?) If believing in the Trinity requires us to mash the three together into one, then that ONE should have a name. Two of the entities have personal names, found in the Bible: Jehovah is the father of Jesus and Jesus is the son of Jehovah. I can make this identification by ordinary reasoning from the plain Bible. No Greek required. It’s only when man’s doctrine is brought in that my question is at all confusing. The holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force, and has no personal name anywhere in the Bible. In fact, h.s. is not in evidence just when we should expect to see it/him/her: the end-times book of Revelation. We see Jehovah enthroned; we see Jesus as the Lamb or riding into battle or sitting at the right hand of Jehovah; no holy spirit.
My comment about Newton indicates only that I once worshiped science as the answer to man’s problems. Not any more. Mt 6:9,10 is my standard now.
John 1:1 has capital-G God in your bolded portion. What is your authority for the capitalization?
Doug,
Thank you for your repeated inquiries & defenses. In producing answers, I find that I always learn something new!
Now, concerning Matthew 28:19, I never claimed that the word “God” was used. But, the “Father” is God, would you not agree? So, when Christ says, “n the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, is He not equating all Three? Since you never answered my question, was Christ wrong in His statement? Or, did Saint Matthew recall it incorrectly? Is there a third option?
“No Greek required.”
Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. And, all of the oldest codices of the N.T. (e.g., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) are in Greek.
“The holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force, and has no personal name anywhere in the Bible.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “personal name”. You did previously claim “[t]here is no name for the holy spirit, just a title”, which is not true. The Holy Spirit has many names in both the Old & New Testaments. The best known name is the one Christ gave in Saint John 14:16-17: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with, you for ever. The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive”. And, from John 15:26: “But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”
To learn more, see this article:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm
“In fact, h.s. is not in evidence just when we should expect to see it/him/her: the end-times book of Revelation.”
This is also wrong: “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet [...].” - Rev. 1:10 (Cf 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 4:2; 14:13; 17:3; 21:10; 22:17)
“My comment about Newton indicates only that I once worshiped science as the answer to man’s problems.”
Your comment implied that you had other men, like Newton, that you considered “gods”. I’m glad that you no longer think that way. Praise the LORD!
“What is your authority for the capitalization?”
A quick search informed me that the oldest copies of Greek N.T. were written with all capital letters. I’m no expert in Greek, or English for that matter (ha-ha!), so, I will readily defer to any facts you may provide. But, the Latin Vulgate (the official translation of the Catholic Church) capitalizes it:
In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et <b>Deus erat Verbum.</b>
Are you ever going to answer my questions, Doug?
God Bless!
Doug,
My reply is forthcoming, I hope!
It was flagged as spam, and I tried multiple times to re-send it by eliminating a link & splitting my comment in half, but, it didn’t work.
So, if all my submissions come through, I apologize. I hope you will be able to decipher what I wrote.
God Bless!
My tags seem to have messed-up my reply. I will try one more time, for clarity:
Doug,
Thank you for your repeated inquiries & defenses. In producing answers, I find that I always learn something new!
Now, concerning Matthew 28:19, I never claimed that the word “God” was used. But, the “Father” is God, would you not agree? So, when Christ says, “[...]in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, is He not equating all Three? Since you never answered my question, was Christ wrong in His statement? Or, did Saint Matthew recall it incorrectly? Is there a third option?
“No Greek required.”
Most of the New Testament was written in Greek. And, all of the oldest codices of the N.T. (e.g., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) are in Greek.
“The holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force, and has no personal name anywhere in the Bible.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “personal name”. You did previously claim “[t]here is no name for the holy spirit, just a title”, which is not true. The Holy Spirit has many names in both the Old & New Testaments. The best known name is the one Christ gave in Saint John 14:16-17: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with, you for ever. The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive”. And, from John 15:26: “But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”
To learn more, see this article:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm
“In fact, h.s. is not in evidence just when we should expect to see it/him/her: the end-times book of Revelation.”
This is also wrong: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet [...].” - Rev. 1:10 (Cf 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 4:2; 14:13; 17:3; 21:10; 22:17)
“My comment about Newton indicates only that I once worshiped science as the answer to man’s problems.”
Your comment implied that you had other men, like Newton, that you considered “gods”. I’m glad that you no longer think that way. Praise the LORD!
“What is your authority for the capitalization?”
A quick search informed me that the oldest copies of Greek N.T. were written with all capital letters. I’m no expert in Greek, or English for that matter (ha-ha!), so, I will readily defer to any facts you may provide. But, the Latin Vulgate (the official translation of the Catholic Church) capitalizes the word Deus:
In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.
Are you ever going to answer my questions, Doug?
God Bless!
Nick:
“Now, concerning Matthew 28:19, I never claimed that the word “God” was used.”
From a previous post of yours to me: “
“The only “god” you should have in your life is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 28:19).””
You wrote, ““No Greek required.””
(a) That’s because the Bible has been translated in more than a thousand languages by competent men, for the benefit of those who “are skinned and knocked about like sheep without a shepherd”. For millenia it was available only in the captive Latin, hoarded by the Church for specious reasons.
(b) You require Greek for your “name” of the holy spirit: paraclete. It has an English translation: comforter. Neither is a personal name (for your holy spirit “person”) as seen by “another paraclete” and “the paraclete”. Do you believe in “the Jesus”? I certainly hope you believe in “the Messiah”.
You quote, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”. Like John 17:21, “That they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me” So John, Matthew, Peter and the rest ARE God, per the prayer of Jesus ... while he was ON earth ... TO his Father ... who was IN heaven ... Say, that Trinity doctrine sure is confusing, isn’t it?
“From a previous post of yours to me:”
I assure you, Doug, that I know very well what I’ve written during our conversation. If you look carefully you will see that I did not use quotation marks. That was my statement. By asking you to “see Matthew 28:19”, I was not implying that you would find the word “God” used three times in that passage. This is basic grammar.
“You wrote, ““No Greek required.””[sic]”
No, I was quoting you, Doug, from your Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 11:15 PM, post. I was responding to your assertion. Again, proper use of quotation marks must be understood.
“For millenia it was available only in the captive Latin, hoarded by the Church for specious reasons.”
This bogus claim of your’s shows me that you have no understanding of how the Sacred Scriptures have come down to our own age, I’m afraid. Saint Jerome was told to translate the Bible into Latin by Pope Damasus I, in A.D. 382, because Latin had become the common language of the people. For the first three centuries of Christianity Greek was the common language of the people, and, the Scriptures were copied in Greek. When Latin ceased being the common language, the Church authorized translations into many languages.
“Neither is a personal name (for your holy spirit ‘person’) as seen by ‘another paraclete’ and ‘the paraclete’.”
Again, you don’t define what you mean by “personal name”, so, I don’t know what you mean. After all, “Jesus” (Yeshua in Hebrew) is translated as “God is Salvation”. Israel (Is-ra-el) is translated as “He struggles with God”. Many other “personal names” in the Old Testament have translations, e.g., Abram/Abraham, Moses, Solomon/Shlomo, etc. So, when you ask if I believe in “the [God is Salvation]”, yes, I do. (“Messiah” is translated as “One who is smeared with oil”, by the way).
“So John, Matthew, Peter and the rest ARE God, per the prayer of Jesus [...].”
Christians do participate in the Divinity of God, as adopted sons & daughters, but, that is a totally different conversation!
<i>“Say, that Trinity doctrine sure is confusing, isn’t it?”
No, Doug, it isn’t confusing at all. It is a mystery that our puny brains can only understand but a minuscule part. Just as a 5 year old cannot begin to understand theoretical physics.
Now, will you answer my questions?
God Bless!
the prayer of Jesus ... while he was ON earth ... TO his Father ... who was IN heaven ... So, no Trinity. The devil is in the prepositions; “son OF God”, never “God the Son”. So, no Trinity.
The “Holy Spirit person” has no personal name. The Father person and the Jesus person have names, just as every other “person” in our own lives has a personal name. In addition to any titles (“comforter”, “helper”) they may have. So, no Trinity.
Right this very minute, with Jesus “exalted”, “glorified” and the rest, even [as Catholics believe] having his Corpus restored, is sitting AT the right hand of the Father. All scriptural, in “the Bible we Catholics gave you!!!” Yet ... No Holy Spirit person seen in these heavenly scenes, which have been the reality since John’s visions. (Not seen either, by Daniel nor by dying Stephen.) So, no Trinity. Jesus himself still has a God NOT himself, Rev 3:12. So, no Trinity. Jesus still waiting obediently for his Father’s command to begin his final work, Rev 14:14-16. So, no Trinity.
Back to the OP: ‘Did it really happen?’ Yes, because the Bible says so.
Relevance to our day (Rom 15:4): The belief is a test of one’s faith in God’s word. Analyzing the story from a Biblical perspective only, including fulfilled prophecies, strengthens our faith as we move deeper into a time when only faith will sustain us; not temples nor organizations nor rituals. Jimmy and I like to do our research; many interesting and true things are learned from it. But it can be a distraction, as Paul noted. “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.” Col 2:8
BTW folks, I think that many times the Almighty Filter [Person?] blocks or delays posts just because they are very long, which can be an indicator of spam. IOW our prose is too prolix.
Doug,
Your arguments are just not persuasive, I’m afraid. You either repeat the same assertion over & over again, or, you make no argument & just ignore my rebuttals.
You assert that the name “Holy Spirit” is “just a title.” I show you that one of the Holy Spirit’s many names is “Paraclete.” You claim this is not a “personal name” (whatever that means) because it can be translated from the Greek into “Comforter.” I, in return, show you that “Jesus” is translated as “God is Salvation” (Yahweh is translated as “I AM WHO I AM” or “I AM EXISTENCE”, by the way.)
And you come back with….your original claim that the Holy Spirit has no “personal name” & “[s]o, no Tinity.” You already said that. Please address my objection.
You wrongly claimed that the Holy Spirit “is not in evidence” in the Book of Revelation. When I provided many verses that mention the Holy Spirit, your rebuttal was….nothing. Why is that? I thought this was a conversation?
Plus, Saint John refers to Christ as God several times in Rev.:
“But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, “‘Fear not, I am THE FIRST AND THE LAST [...]’” (Rev. 1:17; cf 2:8 &22;:12-13).
“The first and the last” is a title of God in the Old Testament:
“Thus says the LORD [Yahweh], the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I AM THE FIRST AND I AM THE LAST; besides me there is no god’” (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4 & 48:12).
In Rev. 22:13 Christ calls Himself the “Alpha & Omega.” John begins Rev. saying that God is the “Alpha & Omega”:
“‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ SAYS THE LORD GOD, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8). (By the way, “who is and who was and who is to come” (Rev. 1:4,8) is another way to say “Yahweh” or “I AM WHO I AM”).
Saint Thomas referred to Christ as God in John 20:28:
“Thomas answered [Christ], ‘My Lord and MY GOD!’”
Saint Paul also referred to Christ as God:
”[...] [T]o them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, WHO IS GOD over all be blessed for ever” (Romans 9:5).
”[...] [A]waiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of OUR GREAT GOD and Savior Jesus Christ [...]” (Titus 2:13).
And, Saint Peter:
“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of OUR GOD and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).
Saint Luke equated the Holy Spirit with the “Spirit of Jesus” in Acts 16:6-8 :
“And they went through the region of Phry’gia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come opposite My’sia, they attempted to go into Bithyn’ia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them; so, passing by My’sia, they went down to Tro’as.”
Now, do still believe that Jesus Christ is Saint Michael the Archangel, Doug? (Bonus: Do you know the English translation of Mi-cha-el?)
God Bless!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.