Question 156 - What to do with apparitions?

Firstly Bob, yours is a tremendous website - You truly have 'put on the armour of Christ'. I read yours and John Salza's sites regularly, and you both show how Catholicism really is Bible Christianity 'par excellence', as John puts it. I also sat and listened to your whole 3 hour debate with James White on you tube - impressive stuff. It baffles me how intelligent men (which he obviously is) can blind themselves and refuse to see. Pride is a dangerous vice isnt it!

Bob, a few questions:

1) What is your opinion on the Bayside prophecies, and other such prophecies which seem to contain a load of apparitions of Our Lady and Christ? I have read that any apparitions other than Fatima, and possibly one or two others, (especially when Our Lady is concerned) are to be rejected? I can see why this might be so, but then in the bayside prophecies what Our Lady (supposedly) says is not contravening any teaching.

Brenden

R. Sungenis: My opinion is to stay away from apparitions in general, unless the Church has approved it, and even then one must be careful, because all kinds of abuse can occur. Fatima, in particular, has been very much abused (by popes themselves) to the point that hardly anyone knows what it is really saying.

Question 155 - How do we reconcile Deut 20 and John 8?

Robert,

How do we reconcile instances in which God ordered the destruction of every man, woman and child in the Old Testament with Jesus' dealing with the woman caught in adultery in John 8? Aren't these two passages contradictory?

John D.

R. Sungenis: John, this is a very good question. Saul, the first king of Israel about 500 years after the origination of Torah, lost his kingship to David because he failed to follow through with the Torah’s mandate. Saul was told by God to: “Attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses’” (1Sa 15:3). Saul obeyed most of the command, except he decided to spare the sheep, oxen, lambs and worthwhile material goods. It was after Samuel heard the “bleating of the sheep” that God says: “I regret that I have made Saul king…for he has not carried out my commands,” and he was soon deposed (1Sm 15:11-35). So this was very serious business. In essence, God is saying: ‘either you destroy all of them, or I will destroy you.’ This practice, commonly called a cherem in Hebrew, stems from God’s law regarding warfare against foreign nations in Deut 20. The Israelites were first to offer peace terms with the proviso that the foreigners would become the slaves of Israel. If the peace terms were refused, then Israel was to attack, killing only the men, sparing the women, children and material goods for themselves. But this sparing only applied to nations that were far away from Israel. The nations close to Israel (namely, the places that Israel was destined to inherit from the promise given to Abraham) were to have all their citizens destroyed and their goods burned. The reason is given in Deut 20:18: “lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord, your God.” Another reason stems from God’s words to Abraham in Gen 15:16 when he was promised the land of Canaan for his descendants. God told him that Israel could not yet take Canaan from its inhabitants because “the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” In other words, God waited until the evil reached its fullest stage and then he would allow the Israelites to destroy all of the citizenry. In effect, the foreigners were punished for their wickedness. God did not initiate cherems arbitrarily.

But, of course, this was all under the Old Covenant of Moses. Once the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant, the civil laws of Israel would no longer be valid or applicable. This is why it is so important today to understand and accept that the Old Covenant has been superseded, for if it is not superseded, than Manis Friedman and his Chabad rabbis are absolutely correct – Israel still has divine right to Palestine and the mandate to use the cherem prescription in Deut. 20 to accomplish their goals. In fact, under the pretense that they were still abiding by the Old Covenant, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon appealed to Deut. 20 and 1 Sam 15 as a divine mandate for their attacks on Palestinian villages in Deir Yassin in 1948, later escalating into Qibya in 1953, Kafr Qasim in 1956, and many other places, in each case viewing the Palestinians as the “Amalekites” that God was punishing by having the Israelis kill the men, women and children. This was repeated as late as 1982 by Begin and Sharon as they murdered the men, women and children of Lebanon, and Sabra and Shantila, and it occurred again in Gaza just a few months ago.

Since we are discussing the implications of the Old Covenant, let me add this important note. Considering the above truths about the cherem, I dare say that the authors of the USCCB’s 2006 United States Catholic Catechism for Adults didn’t think out the implications of the heretical statement on page 131, which claimed that the “covenant with Moses is eternally valid for the Jewish people.” For if the US catechism was correct and the Old Covenant is still valid, the USCCB would have signed its own death warrant. Under the Old Covenant, the Jews first order of business would be to offer peace terms to the bishops, and if they refused, Israel would have the divine right to kill them. It wouldn’t matter if the bishop were ‘near or far’ from Israel, since in either case the men of foreign nations were to be executed. Please give this information to the next Catholic cleric who is advocating the validity of the Old Covenant for the Jews. The latest is Fr. James V. Schall, SJ of Georgetown University who says on the Ignatius Insight website: “The essential covenant with Moses is permanent as its terms indicate. It is still in effect.” (http://ignatiusinsight.com/features2009/schall_oldnewtestaments_june09.asp). If it’s still in effect, then Fr. Schall better find a good hiding place.  

As for Jesus’ dealing with the woman caught in adultery, we have a completely different situation. First of all, the woman was a Jewess, and thus would not fall under the cherem law of Deut 20, nor is her situation even comparable to the cherem law. Second, Jesus had to contend with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who lived by the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. As such, his intention was to use the adulteress woman as an object lesson for the Pharisees, and, in fact, the primary focus of the passage concerns Jesus’ effort to expose their hypocrisy for, as the text explicates, they brought the woman to Jesus for the express intent of trapping him into disobeying the Mosaic law. Jesus, clever as he always was when the Pharisees tried to trap him, ends up turning the tables on them. As we all know too well, Jesus accomplished this by saying: “he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone,” which resulted in them all walking away in shame since they were all convicted of personal sin. But note this important feature of the story: Jesus did not say they could not stone the woman, otherwise he would be in violation of Moses’ law in Deut 22; and the Pharisees would have indeed trapped him. Instead, Jesus gives no objections to their wish to stone her, but he offers one small suggestion before they do so – let those without sin stone her. Note also that Jesus did not say they could not stone her unless they were sinless; rather, he merely suggested it, and that was enough to prick their consciences and make them drop their stones by their own free will. In effect, Jesus, killed three birds with one stone (pun unintended): (a) he upheld the Mosaic law and avoided the trap of the Pharisees, (b) he convicted the Pharisees of their hypocrisy, and (c) he gave room for the woman to repent of her sin and receive God’s forgiveness, as his New Covenant gospel would prescribe. This is why Jesus wrote on the ground twice. The first time (John 8:6) was to represent the “finger of God” who wrote the Old Covenant (Ex 31:18; Deut 9:10), and which Jesus was upholding. The second time (John 8:8) was from the finger of Jesus, God in the flesh, to represent the New Covenant, which now supersedes the Old (cf. Heb 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9-18).

Now, this does not mean that every woman caught in adultery in Old Covenant Israel would now escape being stoned any more than it meant that the Apostles wouldn’t need to pay the temple tax after Jesus had Peter pull a coin out of a fish’s mouth to fulfill the obligation. In fact, theoretically, the woman could have been brought before the Sanhedrin the very next day. It only meant that, when men put God to the test (as the Pharisees did when they tried to trap Jesus into sinning against the law), God, in turn, will vindicate himself and the Gospel, and make utter fools out of sinful men in the process.

We need to add one more thing. Lest we think that Jesus is being soft on sin in John 8 (as opposed to the harshness of a cherem), the exact opposite is true. Although the New Covenant offers eternal forgiveness to the penitent, it brings even harsher judgment to the unpenitent. Hebrews 10:26-31 speaks of those who continue to sin after having received the Gospel. Whereas the Mosaic Old Covenant would require execution for capital crimes by the testimony of two or three witnesses (as in the case of adultery), in the New Covenant it is the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” that serve as the “two or three witnesses” to our capital crimes. That is why Heb. 10:29 speaks of “severer punishment” for such sinners, for as Paul warns us in verse 31: “it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Question 154 - How do we understand 2 Peter 3:8's 1000 years as a day?

Dear Robert,

A fundie states that the word "as" in one day is as a thousand years can only be interpreted literally. Here is his position. Check out Strong's again!

    G5613
    ὡς
    **̄s
    hoce
    

Probably adverb of compound from G3739; which how, that is, in that manner (very variously used as shown): - about, after (that), (according) as (it had been, it were), as soon (as), even as (like), for, how (greatly), like (as, unto), since, so (that), that, to wit, unto, when ([-soever]), while, X with all speed.
    .
    .
    G3739
    ὅς, ἥ, ὅ
    hos hē **
    hos, hay, **

    Probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588); the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that: - one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also G3757.

In context, 2 Pet. 3:8 establishes that there is a relationship established between a Lord's day and mankind years. The base word, G3739, asserts a meaning 'relative', sometimes in demonstrative form -- meaning exactness. The base word does not rule out an exact relationship.

The actual word, G5613, is the adverbial form of G3739. An adverb modifies a verb. If you look at the text, there is no defined verb associated with "as", which gives rise to the insertion of the word "is". Since there is nothing rejecting precision in the base word, there is nothing rejecting precision in the adverbial usage.

Ismael

R. Sungenis: Ismael, his analysis seems to be a pedantic display that actually says very little of substance. The fact is, HOS is a word making a simple comparison. That is the reason a copulative verb is not added to the sentence, since Peter wants to put the full weight of his verse on the two conjunctives. 

From God's omniscient perspective, the effects of a 1000 years can be as significant as a day, and the effect of a single day can be compared to what happens in 1000 years. We could say much the same if we look at things correctly. Let's take Constantine's legalization of Christianity in 312 AD. This one act, done on one day, had reverberations for the next 1000 years or longer, as Christianity became the dominant religion of the world, whereas prior to 312 it was still huddled in catacombs. As for the events that happen in a 1000 years, take the Muslims who were created in 600 AD. They persisted in their religion, without much change at all, and just a few back and forth incursions with Christianity, for a 1000 years or more. So, in a sense, what happened in one day in 600 AD was the same as what happened for the next 1000 years without much change.

The point of Peter's passage is that the slackers who are saying that God isn't keeping his promise because thousands of years have gone by since the creation better think again, because God is merely waiting for everything to be completed in its proper time. God may need to wait one day longer, or a thousand years longer. It makes no difference. God will not rush just because there are a few complainers among the unbelievers.

Question 153 - Can a rebellion like the American Revolution be just?

Can a rebellion such as the American Revolution be just? And what would be the criteria?

R. Sungenis: The only way a rebellion could be just, under Catholic justice, is if the government is causing the people to sin against God and, after all peaceful attempts to correct the government, the government refuses to stop causing the people to sin, a rebellion against the government would be justified. The big question for the American Revolution is: was England causing the American colonies to sin, or was England merely putting financial demands on the colonies that the colonies did not like? I don't know the history well enough to make a definitive judgment. All I can do is lay out the Catholic parameters.

Recently, I have engaged in a dialog with a Muslim friend of mine and we have been discussing the textual reliability of the New Testament. As a doctrine of faith, my friend believes in what the Qur'an has stated, namely that the previous revelations (the Torah and the Gospel) have been corrupted. He sites the following supporting verse:

"Then woe to those who write the book (of Allah/God) with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah', to traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"

The then sites a hadith which says:
Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)."

As you can see, his religion tells him that the Christian scriptures are corrupted. What he means by "corrupted" is that the text has been tampered with via additions, insertions or deletions of words, sentences or paragraphs by the "pen of the evil scribes." To substantiate his claim, he talked about the ending of Mark 16. Firstly, he points out that none of the earliest writings of Mark contain verses 9-20; for example, papyrus 45, codex Vaticanus and manuscript Sanaiticus. He then sites a couple of different scholars such as Bart Erhman, Robert W. Funk and Bruce Metzger who concur that Mark 16 should end at verse 8 and that the longer ending is a fabrication. In addition, he also said that the earliest patristic sources (Clement of Rome, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome) give no indication of any text beyond 16:8. Finally, he contends that later manuscript traditions from the 5th century contain the longer ending of Mark 16 and therefore the text has been tampered with and is corrupt. "See!" he says "How can you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God if there are clear fabrications present in it?" I really do not know how to answer his question. He seems to make valid points and I would like to hear your feedback on this.

Thank you,
Frank

R. Sungenis: Frank, don't let him fool you. Since Christianity never claimed to have textual infallibility, then it cannot be used as a criterion to judge the validity of Christianity. We would expect, since the transmission of Scripture's copies is a purely human enterprise, it will contain the faults and foibles of the human community. The amazing thing, however, is that with all the potential corruption possible in the transmission of the biblical text, less than 1% of the Bible varies from one manuscript to another, and as a result, all the official doctrines of Christianity extracted from the Bible have solid pedigree. So, it makes little difference if the last 12 verses of Mark are in question. The amazing thing is that there aren't more passages that become victim to such question. The only other major passage that has some doubt is the opening verses of John 8. That's pretty good for a New Testament that has over 1100 chapters! I dare say the Muslim texts cannot boast of such preservation.