Posted on 08/18/2018 10:09:46 AM PDT by Salvation
The Bible and the Church never praise lying, even when there are good intentions behind the act Msgr. Charles Pope
Is lying always wrong?
Question: We are told not to lie, but the Bible says Rahab the prostitute lied to protect the Jewish spies. The Bible later praises her as being justified for doing this. Does Scripture praise lying, which is a sin? — Tamarah E. Jones, La Plata, Maryland
Answer: No. We should be careful to recall that the Bible records many things that are not praiseworthy. There are murders, rapes, theft, polygamy, adultery and the like. The mere reporting of these behaviors is not approval of them. In many cases, such behavior becomes an object lesson to illustrate what happens when such bad behavior ensues. In other cases, the sinful behavior simply goes unremarked. But silence is not the same as approval.
It is true that Rahab lied. Here is the account of it: “So the king of Jericho sent Rahab the order, ‘Bring out the men who have come to you and entered your house, for they have come to spy out the entire land.’ The woman had taken the two men and hidden them, so she said, ‘True, the men you speak of came to me, but I did not know where they came from. At dark, when it was time to close the gate, they left, and I do not know where they went’” (Jos 2:3-5).
The incident is simply recorded. And while the two Hebrew spies benefit from her lie and even promise her reward for her protection, there is no explicit praise in the text for the lie itself.
Later in the Scriptures there is praise of Rahab, but there is no mention of her lie, only her act of receiving the spies and sending them out by a protected way. Here are those texts: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with the disobedient, for she had received the spies in peace” (Heb 11:31). “And in the same way was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?” (Jas 2:25).
Hence we should be careful not to say that the Scriptures affirm lying in this matter. There is a care in the sacred text to focus the praise on her overall benevolence, not the lie. St. Augustine affirms this stance: “That therefore which was rewarded in them was, not [her] deceit, but [her] benevolence; benignity of mind, not iniquity of lying” (“To Consentius, Against Lying,” 32).
However, if what you say is true.....the need for a Roman Catholic to confess to a priest is not needed for the forgiveness of sins...right?
I agree that you do not need to confess to a priest for the forgiveness of sins.
My point, though, is that Catholics who commit “mortal” sins do not keep their priest right by their side to “receive their forgiveness” and I wish you would quit writing that they do.
“Not much to misinterpret.
Your use indicates you are unaware of why Paul was inspired to write this and exactly what he meant in the context of this unit of thought.
Well, tell me what do you think it means to be imitators of Paul as Paul is an imitator of Christ?
Why Paul was inspired to write this, I would think, would be self-evident.
If you do not understand the point of chapters 8,9,10, you will not understand 11:1 (which is the final verse of chapter 10).
The sentence was not dropped out of heaven, divorced from context and the meaning that context has.
Gopple Dampin Fruit Dumpsuits
Good point.
My post was only that this is commonly misinterpreted as a lie or obfuscation on Jesus’ part, and it is an interesting interaction with His half brothers.
Are we to be subject to telling people everything we are thinking about doing?
I understand Chapters 8 (abstain from idols and not to make a brother stumble), Chapter 9 (preach the gospel, make ourselves servants of others, run a good race), and Chapter 10 (run from idolatry and do all for the glory of God). Then, in Chapter 11:1 Paul states be imitators of me as I am of Christ.
This certainly was the way Christ and Paul lived. I fail to understand why we would NOT want to imitate this behavior.
Yes, lying is always wrong, i think Pope explained it pretty good.
In most cases if we do what we should and don`t do what we should not do we would have no reason to lie and yes and it took me many years to figure that one out.
Rahab is a different story, but mainly if we lie about one thing then we will soon be lying about something else and we
will be a liar.
Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
I’ve lost jobs because I refused to lie and my family has suffered as a result. I don’t know if what God thinks of that.
Illustrates the point that as pretty much everyone lies daily...and knowingly....the concept of the “mortal” sin is not a Biblical concept.
I don`t know for sure if mortal sin is a biblical concept or not but here is what is going to happen to liars.
Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Jesus refused, saying, “I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come” (v. 8). However, only a few verses later Jesus “went up to the feast” (v. 10).
Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. 9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
Jesus said he was not yet going to the feast, i can not see that he said he was not going to the feast but just not yet.
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary [the wife] of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Matthew 27:55-61
55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[a] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Luke 6:12,16
12 Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in j prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; 15 Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; 16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor.
James the son of Alphaeus, which is the same as clopas and is marys husband, not Virgin Mary.
Mary, the wife of Clopas was Joses and James mother, James and Joses were named as the brothers of Jesus but Joesph and Mary was not their parents.
This is why context is your friend in reading the Scriptures and not Roman Catholic dogma.
This is why context is your friend in reading the Scriptures and not Roman Catholic dogma.
There are four brothers mentioned, James, Joses, Jude and Simon.
Mary is mentioned as the mother of James and Joses it is obvious that this is mentioned as an identification of this Mary.
An example “ who is that woman? she is the mother of James and joses”
Which James and Joses? which ones do you suppose? The brothers of Jesus are the only James and Joses mentioned.
Simple enough to me, Mary only had one child.
And God told Moses to lie to pharoah. Moses told him that God wants his people to go out into the desert for a three-day festival. (Not that they are leaving for good.} And just prior, God tells Moses to have all of the people “borrow” some jewelry from an Egyption, so when they do flee, they will have plundered them. Sounds a lot like stealing. Although with the word “plunder” - it sounds more like a war against the enemy, so then it is not stealing?
Rather, it would appear that you are the one posting a parroted prevarication, since besides presupposing "borrow" is the correct word, the deception would be that the Israelites were only leaving for a three-day festival, but which was not the request, but that of a three days’ journey into the wilderness:
And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness , that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God. (Exodus 3:18)
Thus the requirement was to "Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness," (Exodus 7:16) and a three day journey away from the Egyptians itself means they could not be returning in 3 days, nor does it mean they would be returning at all, but leaving for good in order to serve the Lord as nation is what is subsequently conveyed.
Thus nothing is said of a three-day festival, and return. And thus they took all they took not just a few animals for sacrificing and food, but all, and with no apparent provision for returning. Why expand all that labor just to return after 3 days? Instead, Moses expressed they would be leaving to sacrifice and serve the Lord forever .
And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die. And Moses said, Thou hast spoken well, I will see thy face again no more. (Exodus 10:28-29)
And Pharaoh finally said,
"go, serve the Lord, as ye have said." Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also. (Exodus 12:31)
What Moses said was of a three-day journey into the wilderness to the the Lord, not temporarily, and with no mention of returning to bondage. Moreover, the Egyptians seemed to have wanted therm gone for good:
And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men. (Exodus 12:31-33)
Yet if we in-credibly presuppose this request for departure into the wilderness to serve the Lord was only for a temporary leave, and subsequent return to grievous bondage, that borrowing does not mean giving, and thus would be a deception, then the Hebrews would not be in deception for borrowing, for they would have expected a return. Either God had Moses ask for a simple leave for a three-day festival and return, and thus borrowing, or to leave to serve the Lord far away from the Egyptians, with a return being dependent upon the response of the latter. And although God knew what would hardened Pharaoh's heart, and what he would do, yet the effective reason they would not be returning was because Pharaoh was breathing fire:
But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi–hahiroth, before Baal–zephon. (Exodus 14:9)
It was after this that God said
And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever. (Exodus 14:13)
And after 400 years of harsh slavery due to new Pharaohs deciding to oppress them in contrast to before, and when they were going to abandoned whatever they could not carry with them, then borrowing would actually be effecting justice upon the nation, in addition to the judgments already executed.
It is of note that the Hebrew word translated as "borrow" basically means to inquire, request , and out of the 173 times it occurs in the OT it is usually translated as "ask" or forms thereof, and "borrow" "borrowed" 6 times in the KJV, mostly as regards the account at issue here, and most other translations use the word "ask" in the verses as issue here. It is also translated 4 times as "lent" in the KJV, though most other translations use the word "gave."
Thus all told, we can add this objection to the list of specious skeptic accusations
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.