The Roman Catholic Church Infallibility Thread

[GracePeace]

Matthew 5:33-37 is about being truthful and not having to swear in other in order to be believed. It’s NOT about making a sacred oath before God.

We don't need to guess what Jesus was after : Jesus says taking vows is the sin of pride, thus "of the evil one", thus He bans them.

LEARN how to read the Scriptures on their proper CONTEXT . . .

Rather, you should learn not to add to Scripture, violating God's Word, so as to uphold your vain tradition. You had better not lie against God's Word, because you will give an answer for it.

 

[GodsGrace]

IDK if you know, but Luther, though I disagree with him, saw the Reformers as the continuation of that Church, and saw the Catholics as breaking off from the original Church.

It's not that the Catholics broke off from the original church...
it's that they wandered from it...doctrinally.
and it happened early on.
I won't read any early theologian after the 200's.
The very early ones, taught by the Apostles, are worthy to be read.
If they all agree on a particular topic, you could be sure that it's what the Apostles themselves taught.
And,,,what they wrote about is in line with scripture - of course.

I think it's wandering again right now...
but that's a different topic.

 

[GodsGrace]

I disagree : If you read the text, Christ was saying it was the sin of pride to make a vow, thus "of the evil one".

Here's the text:


Matthew 5:31-37
31 "It was said, 'WHOEVER * SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE ';
32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever * marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'
34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.
36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot * make one hair white or black.
37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no '; anything beyond these is of evil.


I like to confirm what I believe with those that know much more than I do...
so I DID check out some commentaries when the above was brought up in this thread.

I found this:


BARNES

Thou shalt not forswear thyself - Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Leviticus 19:12, and Deuteronomy 23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.
Perform unto the Lord - Perform literally, really, and religiously what is promised in an oath.

Thine oaths - An oath is a solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favor if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury, or, as in this place, forswearing.

It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. "It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things." To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt. It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, "The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long."

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Matthew 26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Romans 1:9; Romans 9:1; Galatians 1:20; Hebrews 6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exodus 22:11; Leviticus 5:1; Numbers 5:19; Deuteronomy 29:12, Deuteronomy 29:1


JAMIESON

33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself—These are not the precise words of Ex 20:7; but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Le 19:12, &c.). This is plain from what follows.
But I say unto you, Swear not at all—That this was meant to condemn swearing of every kind and on every occasion—as the Society of Friends and some other ultra-moralists allege—is not for a moment to be thought. For even Jehovah is said once and again to have sworn by Himself; and our Lord certainly answered upon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest; and the apostle several times, and in the most solemn language, takes God to witness that he spoke and wrote the truth; and it is inconceivable that our Lord should here have quoted the precept about not forswearing ourselves, but performing to the Lord our oaths, only to give a precept of His own directly in the teeth of it. Evidently, it is swearing in common intercourse and on frivolous occasions that is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed severely condemned in the teaching of the times. But so narrow was the circle of them that a man might swear, says Lightfoot, a hundred thousand times and yet not be guilty of vain swearing. Hardly anything was regarded as an oath if only the name of God were not in it; just as among ourselves, as Trench well remarks, a certain lingering reverence for the name of God leads to cutting off portions of His name, or uttering sounds nearly resembling it, or substituting the name of some heathen deity, in profane exclamations or asseverations. Against all this our Lord now speaks decisively; teaching His audience that every oath carries an appeal to God, whether named or not.

neither by heaven; for it is God's throne—(quoting Isa 66:1);


It SEEMS to me that my original comment was correct.
If you could find something that states otherwise, I'd be interested.
I'm always happy to learn.

 

[nedsk]

The catholics aren't Christians and neither are the reformers.
If they don't repent and start walking with the Lord they all gonna go to hell.

Both groups departed from what the Lord and His Apostles taught long time ago.

Both groups are really slow too because all they have to do is go by the Bible which is where TRUTH can be found.

Do you eat the flesh of Jesus like that says?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Do you eat the flesh of Jesus like that says?

I'm not a cannibal or a vampire so I don't literally eat the flesh of Jesus or drink the literal Blood of Jesus

The catholics aren't really cannibals or a vampires either but they think they are.

The bread and juice in communion is REPRESENTATIVE OF the Body and Blood of Jesus

It's very obviously NOT the literal Blood and Flesh of Jesus as the catholics claim.

 

[nedsk]

I'm not a cannibal or a vampire so I don't literally eat the flesh of Jesus or drink the literal Blood of Jesus

The catholics aren't really cannibals or a vampires either but they think they are.

So when Jesus says eat my flesh and drink my blood he doesn't mean it. Ok got it. Thanks but I'll listen to Jesus and not some rando on the Internet

 

[GracePeace]

But I say unto you, Swear not at all—That this was meant to condemn swearing of every kind and on every occasion—as the Society of Friends and some other ultra-moralists allege—is not for a moment to be thought. For even Jehovah is said once and again to have sworn by Himself

Remember, there is nothing wrong with God swearing, because God is actually God--it is wrong when we do it BECAUSE we are not God ("you can not make one hair white or black"). When we say that we swear, we are assuming Godhood, making ourselves out to be something much more than we really are. It is pride. That is why Jesus says it is of the evil one. He wanted to be God, rebel against God.

 

[GodsGrace]

Remember, there is nothing wrong with God swearing, because God is actually God--it is wrong when we do it BECAUSE we are not God ("you can not make one hair white or black"). When we say that we swear, we are assuming Godhood, making ourselves out to be something much more than we really are. It is pride. That is why Jesus says it is of the evil one. He wanted to be God, rebel against God.

I understand that this is not an easy teaching.
I learned that a Covenant is more than a contract.
I learned that an oath is more than a promise.

If Christians take oaths, it must mean that it's permitted.
When two get married, they take an oath in the presence of God.
What makes it be an oath is the presence of God,,,even though the words are:
Do You Promise....
God's presence turns it into an oath.

 

[GracePeace]

I understand that this is not an easy teaching.
I learned that a Covenant is more than a contract.
I learned that an oath is more than a promise.

If Christians take oaths, it must mean that it's permitted.
When two get married, they take an oath in the presence of God.
What makes it be an oath is the presence of God,,,even though the words are:
Do You Promise....
God's presence turns it into an oath.

I understand it is hard to let go of traditions, but the tradition of taking vows before marriage is a tradition of men that flies in the face of God's Word.

 

[Marymog]

The catholics aren't Christians and neither are the reformers.
If they don't repent and start walking with the Lord they all gonna go to hell.

Both groups departed from what the Lord and His Apostles taught long time ago.

Both groups are really slow too because all they have to do is go by the Bible which is where TRUTH can be found.

 

[nedsk]

I understand it is hard to let go of traditions, but the tradition of taking vows before marriage is a tradition of men that flies in the face of God's Word.

Then why would Scripture say, Do not swear falsely but fulfill the vows you have made to the Lord (Matt 5:33)

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

So when Jesus says eat my flesh and drink my blood he doesn't mean it.

Feel free to submit your crackers and juice for scientific analysis to see if it's actual human flesh and actual human blood.

You will never do this because you know your crackers and juice ain't nothing but crackers and juice

NEWS FLASH - the your crackers and juice represent the Body and Blood of Jesus as though it were His actual Body and Blood even though it's not literally His Body and Blood

Glad we were able to finally get that all cleared up for you.

Do not swear falsely

As the catholics make vows to mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Law had concessions given for the hardness of men's hearts, which Christ nullifies--eg, "any cause divorce" had been given to them, but, now, Jesus says that is no longer permitted (Mt 19)--and taking of vows is one of them. James says it : make no vow AT ALL. "You heard it say 'pay your vows', but I say make no vow at all... anything beyond ['yes, yes,' or 'no, no,'] is of the evil one."

I already explained to you that Jesus didn’t like the concessions made by the Law, He also didn’t like the frivolous oaths allowed by the Law. YOUR problem is that you don’t understand CONTEXT.

Are YOU married? Were your parents married? How about your siblings, grandchildren, etc.? Have you condemned them for their great sin of making marital vows?

Your brain is allergic to Scripture.

And YOUR eyes are woefully blind to it . . .

 

[GracePeace]

I already explained to you that Jesus didn’t like the concessions made by the Law, He also didn’t like the frivolous oaths allowed by the Law. YOUR problem is that you don’t understand CONTEXT.

More than not "liking" them, He nullifies them, because they're made for hard-hearted people, but hard-heartedness has to do with an unbelieving heart falling away from the living God (Heb 3), so there's no place for them in the New Covenant--and oath-taking was one of those concessions. If it were just Jesus saying it, it would be one thing--it may be open to interpretation--but when you have James echoing the teaching in no uncertain terms ("make no vow AT ALL"), that's a different story.

Just as when James says "not by faith alone", I take him at his word, so, also, when James says "make no vow AT ALL", and I simply take him at his word. Quit being like Martin Luther, brother. LOL!

And YOUR eyes are woefully blind to it . . .

Go ahead and respond to my arguments when you're ready--unless you weren't planning on it at all. LOL Why even pretend to join the conversation, then? As if you actually had answers when you don't?

 

[nedsk]

Feel free to submit your crackers and juice for scientific analysis to see if it's actual human flesh and actual human blood.

You will never do this because you know your crackers and juice ain't nothing but crackers and juice

NEWS FLASH - the your crackers and juice represent the Body and Blood of Jesus as though it were His actual Body and Blood even though it's not literally His Body and Blood

Glad we were able to finally get that all cleared up for you.







As the catholics make vows to mary

So we are clear, you're saying, Jesus didn't mean what he said when he said, "Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat my flesh of the son of man...", not bread, not believe in me, not hear my Word, "and drink his blood, you do not have life within you" that generally didn't mean it? Lmbo

Thats as moronic a statement as I have heard in a long time.

 

[BreadOfLife]

We don't need to guess what Jesus was after : Jesus says taking vows is the sin of pride, thus "of the evil one", thus He bans them.

And, as I already educated you – SACRED vis to God are pleasing to Him (Num. 30:3, Deut. 23:22, 24).

Rather, you should learn not to add to Scripture, violating God's Word, so as to uphold your vain tradition. You had better not lie against God's Word, because you will give an answer for it.

The ONLY one “adding” to Scripture here is YOU.
The Bible back up MY argument (Num. 30:3, Deut. 23:22, 24) . . .

 

[GracePeace]

And, as I already educated you – SACRED vis to God are pleasing to Him (Num. 30:3, Deut. 23:22, 24).

1. The Law contained concessions.
2. God's commands can change : incest used to be a holy command ("Be fruitful and multiply" meant "commit incest"), however, now, God calls it an abomination.

The ONLY one “adding” to Scripture here is YOU.
The Bible back up MY argument (Num. 30:3, Deut. 23:22, 24) . . .

I've already debunked your argument, and, now, it is your job to respond to my response.

 

[BreadOfLife]

More than not "liking" them, He nullifies them, because they're made for hard-hearted people, but hard-heartedness has to do with an unbelieving heart falling away from the living God (Heb 3), so there's no place for them in the New Covenant--and oath-taking was one of those concessions. If it were just Jesus saying it, it would be one thing--it may be open to interpretation--but when you have James echoing the teaching in no uncertain terms ("make no vow AT ALL"), that's a different story.

Just as when James says "not by faith alone", I take him at his word, so, also, when James says "make no vow AT ALL", and I simply take him at his word. Quit being like Martin Luther, brother. LOL!

Again – CONTEXT is your enemy.

Go ahead and respond to my arguments when you're ready--unless you weren't planning on it at all. LOL Why even pretend to join the conversation, then? As if you actually had answers when you don't?

Both Jesus and James are saying the SAME thing in context.

Matthew 5:34
But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

James 5:12
"Above all, my brothers, do not swear, not by heaven or earth or by any other oath. Simply let your Yes be yes, and your No, no, so that you will not fall under judgment."

YOUR problem is that you know NOTHING bout Jewish culture or the Law.
Because of this – you can’t possibly understand these passages . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

I understand it is hard to let go of traditions, but the tradition of taking vows before marriage is a tradition of men that flies in the face of God's Word.

Could we define OATH?

It's not a matter of tradition...
it's a matter of what is believed about oaths in Christianity.
You should post something that speaks against it that can easily be understood.

If Jesus meant what it sounds like He meant, then Paul was wrong in taking oaths:

Romans 1:9
9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you,


Romans 9:1
1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,


2 Cor 1:23
23 But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I did not come again to Corinth.


2 Cor 11:31
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.


Galatians 1:20
20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)


Above Paul is doing what Jesus said not to do.
He is not relying solely on his word when making a statement but swearing by God.

Apparently Jesus meant that we are to not use God's name to swear frivolously, as had become the custom.


Whether men swore by God explicitly (Gn 21.23; Jos 2.12) or implicitly (Gn 42.15; 1 Sm 1.26), an oath was a serious matter (Ex 20.7), for the oath always involved a conditional or contingent curse. Moreover, the oath was ever regarded as a sign of loyalty to God (Dt 6.13; Is 48.1), and therefore a false oath was basically a profanation of God's name (Lv 19.12; Ex 20.7). Oaths were employed both in judicial matters and in a variety of everyday affairs. Thus oaths were taken to certify the truth of an utterance and to pledge fidelity to one's word (1 Sm 14.44; 20.13; 25.22; 2 Sm 3.9; Gn 25.33; 47.31); to ascertain the guilt of a person suspected of a crime, e.g., in the trial by ordeal (Nm 5.16–28); and to ratify an alliance (Gn 21.24, 26, 31) or a friendship (1 Sm 20.16–17).

In the New Testament. It is only in the New Testament that the oaths made by God in the Old Testament attain their perfect fulfillment: by sending the Messiah God has been faithful to "the oath that he swore to Abraham our father" (Lk 1.73), His promise to David has been fulfilled by Christ's Resurrection (Acts 2.29–35), and it is God's solemn oath that ratifies Christ's eternal priesthood and guarantees the reality and efficacy of the New Covenant (Heb 7.21, 25).

Respect for oaths seems to have been carefully preserved by the ancient Israelites, but by the time of Christ's coming the Pharisees had distorted this traditional respect through their casuistry. Christ energetically attacked these legalistic abuses, demanding absolute sincerity of his disciples (Mk 23.16–22). He proclaimed a new ideal: "But I say to you not to swear at all" (Mt5.34). St. James restates this teaching: "Let your yes be yes, your no, no" (Jas 5.12). Yet Christ did not absolutely abolish or condemn the use of the oath; His demand set the Christian ideal, but did not rule out the possibility of an oath on certain occasions. Thus, e.g., St. Paul often employed oath formulas in order to testify to the truth of his assertions (Rom 1.9; 9.1; 2 Cor 1.23; 11.31; Gal 1.20).

source: Oaths (in the Bible) | Encyclopedia.com

 

[GracePeace]

Again – CONTEXT is your enemy.

OK If an empty assertion somehow disproves my actual argument, then I can do the same and it disproves any argument you bring : "context is your enemy".
There's the discussion is over. LOL

Both Jesus and James are saying the SAME thing in context.

Matthew 5:34
But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

James 5:12
"Above all, my brothers, do not swear, not by heaven or earth or by any other oath. Simply let your Yes be yes, and your No, no, so that you will not fall under judgment."

YOUR problem is that you know NOTHING bout Jewish culture or the Law.
Because of this – you can’t possibly understand these passages . . .

Make no oath--I take Jesus and James at their word.