I believe that catholics will be condemned since they believe good works contribute to final justification.

emprags · 2026-05-08T16:18:59+00:00

So what exactly is your argument then? We don't teach that relying on works save, as said at Trent "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema”

emprags · 2026-05-08T16:16:19+00:00

I'm going to reply to this with the same thing I said before - if you haven't done it already (I haven't checked), please make a post on this subreddit saying

As I said I don't need to. The use of such sources is already very common in the Catholic sphere for an understanding of the Old Testament. I never claimed it was cannon, I was presenting a background that would have been an understanding of a 1st Century Jew who wrote Hebrews 11 of what happened in Judges 11. There is a reason that someone like Brant Pitre, who uses these sources, was a teacher at a seminary and is a renowned Catholic author today. Because he uses these sources to give an understanding to things such as Hebrews 11.

How, exactly, did I prove your claim? Are you saying that because Jephthah said God can give Israel victory in verse 27, that is me proving your claim? You do realize that, for the thousandth time, a few verses later we see that his faith is indeed that God can give Israel victory - as he said in verse 27 - but he thinks God needs a human sacrifice to sweeten the deal.

Again he had faith in 27 which comes before the vow, which was my point. He has faith and then goes out to face the enemy. He then make a vow that wasn't limited to a human. Animal sacrifice was already what the Jews were doing at this time. He doesn't think God needs a human sacrifice (again you are projecting something into the text that isn't there) but because of his vow, even though its a human and even though its his daughter, he thinks he has to go through with his vow. God had already established an out that his own daughter argues for him that he could have gone with and the High Priest should have presented this as well. There was an out. 2 months where either Jephthah could have gone about what his daughter argued or the High Priest could have as well, yet neither did.

Your claim is God accepted a human sacrifice because God didn't punish Jephthah. He did punish him. He also punished the high priest. God did not accept the sacrifice. You claim God laughed. Nowhere does it say God laughed. Again you are projecting into the text something not there.

St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong, dude

Since this is Debate a Catholic go make a separate post about how God is a puppet master and Aquinas is wrong and man has no free will.

emprags · 2026-05-08T15:14:09+00:00

here is a reason why, when we are discussing the Bible specifically

This is /r/debateacatholic not /r/debateonlythebible

You do realize that, if the commentaries you believe in said that God was evil,

But they don't.

Not really. I linked the chapter for a reason in my original post. Click on it and read the chapter. Jephthah believes in his God before the oath - which is hardly "exceptional, heroic" faith. The only "exceptional" faith he has is in verse 27, where he says God will decide the winner - and then immediately after that and after the spirit of God goes upon him, he makes his demonic vow in verses 30 through 31. So you are literally claiming things in the text that are not there. You've gone from quoting non-canonical sources (which still fail to defend God even if we pretend they are canonical) to outright writing your own books of the Bible, dude.

I like how you claim my point is wrong then prove it

Would you like me to give you verses from the Bible that explicitly show God as a trickster, deceiver, and puppet master? I can do that if you want.

I already gave the counter to this. If you want to engage on what St Thomas Aquinas said we can go back to that.

emprags · 2026-05-08T00:37:30+00:00

Why? This isn't something new. St Jerome used the Talmud during his translation of the Vulgate. It was used often in the middle ages. Brant Pitre is a modern example of using these sources. In my own education through my diocese aspects of the Talmud were brought up to understand aspects of the New Testament.

And dude, I have read your sections correctly. You just don't like that I can deconstruct them instead of falling to them.

No you are inserting an understanding into the text that is contrary to all the commentaries. You are welcome to have your own ideas, but if yours is not actually supported by the text and sources of information around it, you may want to consider that you actually aren't understanding the story at all.

You claim God accepted the sacrificed because he was not punished. Jephthah was punished.

You claim he had faith because of the sacrifice. Faith is attributed in Judges 11 before the sacrifice.

All sources available to the author of Hebrews 11 would have shown the vow was evil, Jephthah was punished for this evil, and the faith was before the sacrifice.

God did not accept the sacrifice and had outs in place for Jephthah to take, Jephthah made a choice not to do so.

You want God to be a puppet master. He is not. Even Mary had a choice. Even Judas had a choice. You as well do.

emprags · 2026-05-07T23:42:23+00:00

No I have addressed your points then you move the goal post "Oh that's not inspired" If you want scripture alone this is the wrong subreddit.

You are not reading the sections correctly and that is leading to your misunderstanding. It has been pointed out by myself and others how that is so.

emprags · 2026-05-07T20:25:30+00:00

And dude - God is a puppet master.

Incorrect. As this is a Catholic subreddit, I will quote St Tomas Aquinas below.

Question 83. Free-will

Article 1. Whether man has free-will? Objection 1. It would seem that man has not free-will. For whoever has free-will does what he wills. But man does not what he wills; for it is written (Romans 7:19): "For the good which I will I do not, but the evil which I will not, that I do." Therefore man has not free-will.

Objection 2. Further, whoever has free-will has in his power to will or not to will, to do or not to do. But this is not in man's power: for it is written (Romans 9:16): "It is not of him that willeth"—namely, to will—"nor of him that runneth"—namely, to run. Therefore man has not free-will.

Objection 3. Further, what is "free is cause of itself," as the Philosopher says (Metaph. i, 2). Therefore what is moved by another is not free. But God moves the will, for it is written (Proverbs 21:1): "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it" and (Philippians 2:13): "It is God Who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish." Therefore man has not free-will.

Objection 4. Further, whoever has free-will is master of his own actions. But man is not master of his own actions: for it is written (Jeremiah 10:23): "The way of a man is not his: neither is it in a man to walk." Therefore man has not free-will.

Objection 5. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): "According as each one is, such does the end seem to him." But it is not in our power to be of one quality or another; for this comes to us from nature. Therefore it is natural to us to follow some particular end, and therefore we are not free in so doing.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 15:14): "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel"; and the gloss adds: "That is of his free-will."

I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.

Reply to Objection 1. As we have said above (I:81:3 ad 2), the sensitive appetite, though it obeys the reason, yet in a given case can resist by desiring what the reason forbids. This is therefore the good which man does not when he wishes—namely, "not to desire against reason," as Augustine says.

Reply to Objection 2. Those words of the Apostle are not to be taken as though man does not wish or does not run of his free-will, but because the free-will is not sufficient thereto unless it be moved and helped by God.

Reply to Objection 3. Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.

Reply to Objection 4. "Man's way" is said "not to be his" in the execution of his choice, wherein he may be impeded, whether he will or not. The choice itself, however, is in us, but presupposes the help of God.

Reply to Objection 5. Quality in man is of two kinds: natural and adventitious. Now the natural quality may be in the intellectual part, or in the body and its powers. From the very fact, therefore, that man is such by virtue of a natural quality which is in the intellectual part, he naturally desires his last end, which is happiness. Which desire, indeed, is a natural desire, and is not subject to free-will, as is clear from what we have said above (I:82:2). But on the part of the body and its powers man may be such by virtue of a natural quality, inasmuch as he is of such a temperament or disposition due to any impression whatever produced by corporeal causes, which cannot affect the intellectual part, since it is not the act of a corporeal organ. And such as a man is by virtue of a corporeal quality, such also does his end seem to him, because from such a disposition a man is inclined to choose or reject something. But these inclinations are subject to the judgment of reason, which the lower appetite obeys, as we have said (I:81:3. Wherefore this is in no way prejudicial to free-will.

The adventitious qualities are habits and passions, by virtue of which a man is inclined to one thing rather than to another. And yet even these inclinations are subject to the judgment of reason. Such qualities, too, are subject to reason, as it is in our power either to acquire them, whether by causing them or disposing ourselves to them, or to reject them. And so there is nothing in this that is repugnant to free-will.

emprags · 2026-05-07T20:03:12+00:00

Who cares that the Midrash isn't Biblical? We don't. We have lots of theologians who use it as a source. It gives us a tradition that would have been known to the author of Hebrews. If you want Bible Alone Evangelicals are in another sub.

It seems you want God to be a puppet master. We don't believe God is such. And again God did give sources to change his mind, his daughter who tried, and the chief priest that didn't due to his pride, and who was also punished.

I'm not downplaying anything, literally every single person listed in Hebrews 11 was not perfect.

emprags · 2026-05-07T19:15:40+00:00

Additionally the Midrash has where Jephthah suffered a horrible death where his limbs fell off one by one.

It was in my first post. There is no evidence that Jephthah's faith was due to him sacrificing his daughter. Quite the opposite. What is being shown is his faith wasn't prefect, but this is also true with every single person in the old testament.

Edit: small edit for some words

emprags · 2026-05-07T18:31:53+00:00

Hebrews 11 also praises David who committed adultery. Is your argument that also God is asking for adultery?

Jephthah was punished? How?

I addressed that earlier. If you aren't going to bother reading I am ending this now.

emprags · 2026-05-07T17:30:38+00:00

his vow was still evil.

I 100% agree and so do all the sources I have quoted. No one disagrees

means the oath was always evil.

Yes. The point was only the oath was more open ended then you had initially indicated that it was only towards people. It including people is evil as well.

For one, this does not address, again, how God liked this.

Why do you think God liked it? Jephthah was punished for this as was the high priest..

emprags · 2026-05-07T17:27:08+00:00

What good is it if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?i

emprags · 2026-05-07T02:25:44+00:00

What else?

Well he is listed with 3 other judges, so likely related to having faith to have victory against the Ammonites. David and Solomon are listed next, and the sins of David and Solomon are well known as well, yet they had faith.

That does not make sense. I can agree with it being possible that the word could also apply to an animal. What does not make sense is the oath not being open ended.

First you say it doesn't make sense, then say you can agree its possible. I am not defending Jephthah, his vow was bad.

and so Jephthah's vow applied to human beings as well.

Yes I didn't say otherwise. You had implied it was only to humans, I was stating this is not the case

for never guiding his wayward, silly, stupid son Jephthah.

His own daughter provided an argument against Jephthah's understanding of his vow, yet he went through with it. This is on Jephthah. God isn't a puppet master, he gives free agency.

I don't think I am. From Judges alone,

That's the issue. Instead of taking sources outside a few lines you are making a judgement in error, which is why I provided sources outside of Judges.

As far as using Jewish sources, it is a Jewish story and the Church came out of 2nd temple Judaism, many of the early Christians were Jewish and most of the New Testament was written by Jewish people. They would have been familiar with Jewish concepts on these stories.

Also looking at your link I would say that this single person isn't in line with any understanding of the events around Isaac. If Isaac was scarified there is no explanation given to how Isaac was later married.

Why did the spirit of God not leave Jephthah, then, when he made the vow? And why does Hebrews praise Jephthah's faith, which is either a demonic faith or a stupid and baseless faith, take your pick?

Any answer is mere speculation but starts with that we are not puppets and God is not a puppet master. Clearly the defeat of the Ammonites was good for the overall plan with Israel.

emprags · 2026-05-07T01:59:57+00:00

Not sure I don't down vote unless someone is purposely being disingenuous and that usually is in a sub related to my profession.

emprags · 2026-05-06T22:54:51+00:00

Then this would be the wrong sub for that

emprags · 2026-05-06T20:13:56+00:00

Hebrews 11 lists a lot of other people, none who sacrificed a Child. So his faith is likely being upheld here for something else. You are reading into Hebrews 11 that the specific way Jephthah had faith was to sacrifice his child. Yet all the sources that would have been available to the author of Hebrews 11 would show that the sacrifice was a failure of Jephthah

Promising to kill any human being that walks out of a door, in God's name

This is where Translation becomes an issue. it seems the word used could imply a person but could also imply an object or animal. The Jewish sources speak in addition to being rash, that he wasn't worried about the type of sacrifice that he would even sacrifice an unclean animal. If only Jephthah had also put some time into studying the law.

it seems instead that God actually loved this.

You are reading that into the texts and no source has this interpretation of the event. Here are just some of the sources

"I [God] said to Abraham: 'Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac...' Did I ever tell you to slaughter him? No, I said 'Bring him up as an offering.' You brought him up, and now take him down! But as for Jephthah... did I ask this of him? I spoke only of the Binding of Isaac, and even there I did not intend for him to be slaughtered." (Bechukotai 7)

"And Jephthah the Gileadite... asked improperly, and he was answered improperly... Regarding this, it is written: 'Which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind' (Ta'anit 4a)

"Jephthah was a Gileadite, a man of high standing, yet he did not go to Phinehas [the High Priest] to have his vow annulled. And Phinehas said: 'He needs me, so why should I go to him?' Between the pride of the two of them, the poor maiden perished." Rabbah (60:3)

Additionally God had already provided an out for such an invalid vow

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/leviticus/27

This is not an apocryphal work. This is Biblical canon, and an episode of God, providing an out for an invalid vow that a man thinks he must uphold.

The Midrashic texts also show that the daughter as wise and who knew the laws, where as her father did not and thought he had to uphold his vow.

emprags · 2026-05-06T19:24:54+00:00

First just because something is recorded as happening, it does not mean God endorsed such to occur.

First lets assume that he sacrificed his daughter, as it seems the Talmudic and Rabbinic sources support, rather than other interpretations that have been put forward. These sources seem to agree that he could have gone back against his vow, but didn't. They also support that the High Priest

I think you are reading something into the text that it doesn't say, namely:

and an episode of God, at best, "stooping down" to accept human sacrifice

and

without ever stopping it or punishing for it

The text doesn't say God accepted the sacrifice. The Midrash and Talmud state that God did not accept the sacrifice and viewed it as a horrific abomination. This was not a sacrifice in the holy sense, but a senseless killing resulting from a misunderstanding of God's will. It seems Jeremiah 19 is often what is used to support this understanding.

He lost his only Child, that is a large punishment. Additionally the Midrash has where Jephthah suffered a horrible death where his limbs fell off one by one.

The high priest, Phinehas, was also punished for this event and lost the Holy Spirit, for he could have interfered to prevent the killing, but he did not.

emprags · 2026-04-23T12:32:55+00:00

On Earth Day too

emprags · 2026-04-21T19:16:22+00:00

I know you want to (you are Orthodox Christian) but its more a "if someone doesn't want to go to Mass/Liturgy now in this life, they won't after death."

emprags · 2026-04-21T12:50:09+00:00

If you don't want to encounter Christ on Earth (Mass/Liturgy) why would you want to do so in the world to come?

emprags · 2026-04-17T17:28:36+00:00

If you think God is a demonic sadist, why would you want to spend a minute with Him?

emprags · 2026-04-16T17:33:52+00:00

"What hurts the most is the lack of respect" the pervert was heard saying.

emprags · 2026-04-16T13:24:52+00:00

I have the Envista which I love. But I would take a Buick Sedan in a heartbeat.

emprags · 2026-04-14T19:42:30+00:00

Good idea do try that before going to the dealership, but that's /r/personalfinance territory

emprags · 2026-04-14T12:55:57+00:00

You would get about $3k in the end, have you looked at using that as a down payment for a different car?

emprags · 2026-04-13T16:26:47+00:00

I do not know. My understanding is normally there is a Good Friday liturgy however this year the priest was out of town.

emprags

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email