Faith is based in an act of the will, and not on emotions. I am sure she went through quite a bit of emotional havoc, her community believing she had fornicated with Joseph (or someone), fleeing into Egypt, giving birth in a stable, and many other experiences. Having feelings does not mean a person lacks faith. Faith involves doing what one believes is right, even when one feels differently.
**Several good points guan.
But what makes you think JA4 will understand the concept of Faith? Why there is even his buddy named “TruthFaith & I think Lies” If my memory serves me right, that has Faith in his name and doesn’t understand the concept.Remember that you have to talk down at a level they can understand if you expect to treach them anything. Do not insult them by talking about complicated things like faith! OK? :tsktsk: **
No, because you post information that is incorrect, and about which you have been given repeated corrections, yet you deliberately persist in pandering untruths. This is different than having an alternative perspectives.
**Now I really do have to defend JA4. I have read many things he posted. He nomally **doesn’t post that are incorrect.
Hey, don’t get mad. Go check what he writes.
He actually doesn’t. He asks questions with incorrect information sure, but he rarely makes “false statements” . There has been some, but not many!
It is like if I asked: “Why Is it Protestant don’t worship Jesus as He demanded that He should be worshipped in the Bible?” " By eating His Body and Drinking His Blood?" Now, Protestants could rightly tell me that was incorrect! Because we all know Jesus didn’t “demand it”. He instructed us to do it, He explained that we couldn’t go to heaven if we didn’t do it. But he never actually demaned it! So they would be right.
Hmmm, I was just thinking, since they don’t have the "real"church to give them the true Euchurist to eat, they can’t follow Jesus’ instructions. Poor Protestants. They must just “overlook” Jesus’ instructions.But that is OK, it isn’t like Jesus said they “had to” eat His Body and drink His Blood in order to be saved. Hmmm, or did He?
The book was not published or used outside of a small regional area. In that area, perhaps, it had an influence in that day and time. As you have read from many Catholic posters here, most of us have never heard of it, or read it.
**Never heard of it here! **
You want us to start republishing your lies? No thanks! One example, though, is that you keep saying that the deuterocanonicals were not included in the canon until Trent, when it has been shown to you that this is not the case.
**
**
Sorry guan, JA4 is correct! Yea, I know. I hate agreeing with him also!
While many Catholics communities accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the RCC only officially added the Deuterocanonicals to our Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D.The Protestants had already “borrowed” our Bible by that time to make their various bibles. Since the Deuterocanonical books teach many things that aren’t contained in the incomplete bible, Protestants do not feel they are true or historically accurate. They have problems with praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” not to mention atoning for sins.
Just think guan, If they had waited until after the Council of Trent they would have the “Full” correct bible that they could have changed.:bounce: Just tell JA4 you misspoke, he will understand ~ he does it all the time!
JA4 isnt a bad person. :tiphat: He even asks an intelligent question every once in a while.
I saw one about three or was it four weeks ago?
God Bless, keep up the good fight! ****
Almost up to the standards of the National Enquirer.
d so do us followers of Gods real church 
!!
In all sincerity: If the shoe does not fit, do not put it on…OK?
Darn, just like a protestant … won’t let a catholic have anything! Always have to borrow, borrow and “borrow”.
I think you also “feel my pain!”