:extrahappy::dancing:
No need to excuse yourself. You have a perfect right to make comments. Thank you for taking your time to do so.
Let’s compare your statement above and my statement you commented on which I highlighted.
Thanks for your opinion. One day we will see. I hope sooner than later.
What does?
I hope for your sake you are correct. If you are not correct, all those fine scholars that have concluded things different that you and the CC are correct and you are judging them. Serious, wouldn’t you say? Better to keep ones ‘mouth’ shut than judge.
Doesn’t look like you need my help.
Jesus has proven Himself faithful over and over and over again. I’m glad it only takes a mustard seed of faith to please Him.
I’m happiest when I’m obedient to Jesus and fellowshiping with brothers and sister in Christ.
I’ve said your tactics and the tactics of others will not change me. I don’t deal well with condescending ways.
That’s nice of you.
Thanks.
Disagreement does NOT mean not seeing things from your point of view. I take it you think you see it from my point of view yet you disagree with me.
As I showed you above, I DID NOT take it as a personal attack.
I believe you’ve taken it out of context. I obviously care about the topics I comment on.
I care I have to spend so much comment time correcting your wrong ideas of what I think and am saying. That’s why I’ve asked you to stop doing it, yet you continue. That’s frustrating.BTW, “I don’t care” is a common response humans make when they do care, but they wish they did not, since the caring is upsetting.
Wrong. Did Jesus stop Peter from denying Him? NO!!! Did that mean He did not have the power to do so? NO.
As I’ve just shown you, you are wrong.
I do no see this as a confusion nor would I say that the Holy family was un-natural. Mary and Joseph gave themselves up to God’s will fr their lives - a model we should all follow.
- after all Jesus is God *Incarnate *- God in the Flesh]I do not consider adultery a ‘normal’ weakness. I hear shades of Clinton the most powerful leader in the world and Monica, the young intern not yet 21 …
Amen brother…amen!
The English translation of the original language said that. Luke 1:13 in Greek said "Eipen de Mariam pros ton angelon, “Pos estaitouto, epei andra ou ginosko?” The word “Pos” has the enclitic particle of indefiniteness. The phrase “Pos estaitouto epei andra ou ginosko” should be translated “How (with expression of indefiniteness) it can be since I do not know a man?”. Translation sometimes make the original meaning disappear.
I did a little ‘scholarly’ work and found the following form ancient-egypt-online.com/river-nile-facts.html …
“The Nile River is often associated with Egypt, it actually touches Ethiopia, Zaire, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Sudan.”
So, would you say that when I said ‘Africa’ I was doing okay?
You are right of course.
This a good point, and an accurate observation that discussions about Mary inevitably find their way to the root, which is authority and Sacred Tradtion. I have been here for some time now, and been on dozens of “Mary” threads, and they all end up the same!
I am sorry, Doki. I still don’t understand. A member criticized your interpretatations based upon poor scholarship. You said it was a “personal attack”. Then you posted that you never claimed to be a scholar, so telling you that is not personal. I don’t get it. If you admit you are not a scholar, why are you taking it as an “attack”?
Catholics don’t need to wait, because we have the revelation of Jesus infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS.
People make erroneous interpretations of the Holy Scriptures based upon poor scholarship.
No, Doki, I am not judging any persons. I am judging their conclusions on the basis of the One Faith that was handed down to us by the Apostles. I am commanded to examine all things, and hold fast to that which is true. Besides, the conclusions are not mine, they are part of the once for all deposit of faith that was committed to the Church. We are not at liberty to start cutting things out of it, or change what was committed to us.
If you are unwilling to offer your help, then what good does it do to observe that I need it? Are you just trying to find fault with me while witholding anything you can give that will correct my faults? I find it interesting that you recently castigated me in another post for making incorrect assumptions, and commanded me to ask you to clarify instead of drawing wrong conclusions.
You have yet to explain how, if He is faithful, why He did not keep His promises to the Church.
I think this is hard for you because you have some very deep seated trust issues. You are unable to accept the testimony of the Church on some very critical items.
I agree, it is possible to see a different point of view, but not agree. I am working with troubled teens right now. I just listened to one of them tell me about having multiple abortions. I disagree with her choices, but I understand how she came to make them.
Perhaps you can clarify what you were referring to in this reference to “personal attacks”?
Ok. Perhaps you can explain.
You seem to care enough to argue against the Teaching of the Apostles on the matter.
It seems to me that people don’t bother to engage in discussion on topics that are of no interest. Since you are so convinced that the Apostles “made a mistake” in choosing Matthias, you obviously care enough to try to convince us that what we received from the Once for All Deposit of Faith is wrong.
It is frustrating for me as well. I have difficulty understanding why you cannot see the logical conclusions of your arguements. For example:
When Peter denied Him, Peter was not acting on behalf of the Church, nor was he making a decision that he believed represented the will of God after praying and reading scripture. This is the difference between actions that are protected by the gift of infallibility and personal actions that are not impeccable.
God did not promise to keep David (or any other individual) from sin. The gift of infallility was given to the Church. That is why, when individuals depart from communion with the Church, they are not longer protected by the promise.
I am certain that you don’t believe your premises lead there, but you have offered me no other possibility. Why did Jesus leave the Church orphaned after He said He would not? How is it the HS failed to preserve them in the Truth? If He was not too weak, then what was it? You are suggesting that the weakness of men is stronger than the might of God.
You wonderfully posted the conversation bellow. I’ll comment there. I think you get it all cleared up for you.
You may be correct. You may not be correct.Catholics don’t need to wait, because we have the revelation of Jesus infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS.
Or trusting in wrong tradition which is spoken about in the Bible as well as following correct tradition.
Will you blame the CC if some of your understandings are proven incorrect? I will not blame anyone but myself when I’m proven wrong.
For what are you asking my help?
You quoted me to have said, “Doesn’t look like you need my help.” Again you’ve concluded wrongly and interjected wrong meaning into what I’ve said. I’m believing you do this perposely. You either want to convince yourself or others I don’t have a clue. That may be true, and if so, you don’t have to change or add to what I’ve said incorrect statements. You should just let me ‘hang’ by myself. Because you do change and distort, can I conclude I do make more sense (in spite of my poor writing skills) than you want a non-catholic to have?
Maybe I do and am. Maybe they need these things to be true or else they’d have to acknowledge a bit of correct understanding different than their own.
I can’t because Jesus have kept His promises.You have yet to explain how, if He is faithful, why He did not keep His promises to the Church.
I accept any correct testimony the the CC has about Jesus. You’ve commented several times that things I’ve said is very ‘catholic’.
William F. Buckley’s opinion about many women that have abortions is they it’s not really their free choice. He said they often are ‘forced’ into abortions. Not to mention the hormones that reek havic on the emotion of women when they are pregnant. IMO, God holds those forcing the woment and those perfoming the abortions FAR more guilty than the troubled women. Of course there are many that know better and abort anyway.
Thank you.
If you notice the quotes you pulled up, Lily was attacking the scholarship of the people she thought I was studying through or with. I was refering to her attack on them. I told her not to blame anyone for my understandings. I study for myself (not in a vacuum - I think you made that observation and brought it to light which I agreed).
I can’t remember which of the direct teachings of the NT I’ve disagreed with. It’s been teachings after the NT cannon that I’ve commented on, not the direct teachings of the NT. If I’m incorrect, please show me the teachings of the 1st century apostles that I’ve disagreed with.You seem to care enough to argue against the Teaching of the Apostles on the matter.
I’m not exactly sure why I made the original comment. That’s so many words ago. However, I’ve continues the conversation only in response to comments by you and others. I’ve had to correct your wrong understandings of what I’ve said.It seems to me that people don’t bother to engage in discussion on topics that are of no interest. Since you are so convinced that the Apostles “made a mistake” in choosing Matthias, you obviously care enough to try to convince us that what we received from the Once for All Deposit of Faith is wrong.
I understand it is hard for you to admit that something said does not necessarilly have the conclusion you think it does.
When the CC ordains men, where’s the gift of infallibility? If it doesn’t apply here, are you telling us that God is too weak to control who the CC ordains? If you are not saying that, then why accuse me of meaning that? You can’t have it both ways and be honest with yourself.
You make my point. I don’t think you see that though.
God didn’t, IMO, promise to keep the church faultless. He promices to cleanse her. Two very different things. One gets cleanse because there is dirt. There’s no shame before mankind when dirt is found because all are dirty. The only shame comes when claims are made of being clean with no dirt and dirt is obvious. The shame is in denial. (not the river in Egypt/Africa
)Actually, from my viewpoint, it is you that has no other possibility because if you enterain I could be correct, then you’d be in a dilema. That would be too bad. That’s why many leave the CC: starting with a wrong (IMO of course) presupposition about the CC and then have their ‘faith’ dashed when mistakes are discovered. EX. the CC isn’t infallible because some they ordain are not good representatives. People can’t reconcil these contradictions.
I think I’ve posted this for you before, but here it is again just in case.
Why do you think Jesus abandoned the promises He made to His infant Church?
I am glad that you can see that there is some correct tradition in scripture that must be followed.
No, not a bit! I used to do that, but I got over it.
I have included all the links, so that one can follow the conversation back to it’s beginning. The little blue icon next to the name will take the person right to the post which is being quoted, so that the reader can see the full context of the quote.
To the extent that I am in communion with the Teachings of Jesus then I can be protected by His promise that I will be led into all Truth.
You seem to lack sincerity by asking. Put the two together (you have all the answers and you lack sincerity) I don’t see you need, want nor would receive my help.**
The help I need is to understand what YOU are saying, because it does not make sense to me. Unfortunately, the CC can’t help me with that either.
Dokimas:
Yes, you have posted things that indicate you agree with the Teachings of Jesus as handed down to us from the Aposltes. You use yourself as the standard of what is “correct testimony about Jesus”.
I would too. In the case of the CC, the documents only point to what Jesus has already done.
This is only true because the “original” is founded by Christ, and He does not create error.
I agree, but have you ever considered that God uses fear to draw us? Is it so bad to fear the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell? Granted, love is a much more advanced way to come to God, but fear will do, if it gets us there. Then His perfect love can cast out the fear.
She was attacking the poor scholarship that resulted in the interpretations. It turned out to be yours. However, I do understand the point you are making here.
Clearly you do not like the logical conclusions of your arguement. In order for your theories to be true, God had to fail to keep HIs promises.
Indeed, but you believe that Peter was “weak” and made a mistake in choosing Matthias to succeed Judas. You do not think that God was “strong” in Peter, but abandoned Peter’s solution,and “chose Paul instead”.
So, you think I misunderstood your assertion that Peter made a mistake? Or your assertion that God chose Paul “instead” of Matthias to replace Judas?
Why would you call the leading of God “intereference”? One of the reasons that the discernment period for priests is so long and involved is to allow God to reveal His will to the individual, and to the Church.
I am sorry I cannot follow this. I think you are saying that God must be weak because men choose to sin, and He does not prevent it.
They are not two “ways”. They are separate situations. In one, the Church entrusting themselves to God, and is acting as a unity. In the other, and individual is choosing to sin against God and the Church.
Ordained persons can benefit from the gift just as we all can. If we remain in communion with the Truth, we inherit the promise. When an individual chooses to sin, whether it is an ordained person or a lay person, that individual has left the Truth, and no longer is protected by the promise.
Ordination, Doki, is not a sin, or a “mistake”. What a person may do after they ordained may be, but that is not an action of the Church. You are saying that the Church ordained Matthias by “mistake”.
As individuals we can be dirty, but the Church has been purified by Him, and is Holy. That is why, when we sin, we separate ourselves from her.God didn’t, IMO, promise to keep the church faultless. He promices to cleanse her. Two very different things. One gets cleanse because there is dirt. There’s no shame before mankind when dirt is found because all are dirty. The only shame comes when claims are made of being clean with no dirt and dirt is obvious. The shame is in denial. (not the river in Egypt/Africa
Eph 5:
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Dokimas;6826710:
More than a dilemma, and “too bad”, because you present that which constitutes “a different gospel”, I would be accursed!
There is no contradiction, Doki. Individuals are members of the Church, but the Church cannot sin, because she is kept in purity by Christ. A person’s choice to sin, whether before they are ordained, or after, does not subtract from the purity of Christ. that is like saying, “since Judas betrayed Christ after he was chosen by him, Christ is fallible”.
Why do you continue to make these claims of what I believe and am saying.
I try to see things from the Bible’s perspective.I am glad that you can see that there is some correct tradition in scripture that must be followed.
Yep, another ‘dig’.
If this is the answer to my questions, taking what you’re saying in context to the questions you are telling us that you used to get upset when you found the CC teaching incorrect but now it doesn’t upset you. Good that you’re making progress.No, not a bit! I used to do that, but I got over it.
You are correct. The teachings of Jesus are NOT lacking. It’s the understanding of us (including some things from ALL churches) that is lacking to one degree or another.
Good. Thank you. I noticed that. Thanks for supporting my claims.
I would greatly appreciate it if you’d stop distorting what I say. Again, thanks for your understanding and co-operation.
Here’s some advice: don’t tell us what I mean before asking me to clarify it. It comes across as a false witness.
I’m not a standard. Us ‘Bible Only’ use the Jesus/the teachings of the Bible as our standard.
Good thing we don’t have to be exact to be part of His original church. If we needed to be perfect, there would be no one in His church AND no present day ‘churches’ either.
Jude tells us there is an occation for ‘fear’. However, it’s been abused too often. You fill in the blanks as to what I mean.
Finally.
Here we go again. I no sooner think we’re making progress then back 4 steps. I know it’s scary for you to entertain the possibility that you are incorrect about what the conclusions of my arguments are. God has not failed; we (all churches including the CC) have failed including doctrine.
I did not say that God abandoned Matthias. I’m sure God used Matthias. However, history has shown that God used Paul at least to the degree He used Peter. That speaks volumes as to God’s choice. Remember, God uses our mistakes. That’s the power of His love, mercy and grace.
My question had NOTHING to do with God’s weakness. I asked you how you think God was to tell Peter and the others they were doing His job. We’re spending so much time on such a small thing. Can’t we move on yet?
Have all the pediphiles been weeded out? Using your logic, God is too weak to cause the CC to get rid of the pediphiles before they do their wicked deeds as priests.
On one hand you say Jesus did promise any individual would be without error. Then you tell us that Peter was not in error and the CC is not in error when they choose a man that is, in his heart, a pediphile to be a priest. If it’s not the CC that is in error (an error allowed by God for His own purposes) or you are telling us that God is too weak to stop it.
As He doesn’t necessarily stop the CC or any other organization for making mistakes either.
If I’ve said over and over and over over and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and overover and over and over again that God is NOT weak in allowing people to make wrong choices or tosin, why do you insist on making this FALSE claim?
And God did show them, IMO, starting on the road to Damascus.
Interesting:thumbsup: to inherit the promise, as you say, we must remain in communion with the Truth. God doesn’t force us to be in that communion. Therefore, I was correct that Jesus is not going back on His promise if the CC strays at times from communing with the Truth. Following your logic leads us to what I’ve been saying all along. Thank you.
I’m not saying the CC ordained Matthias. The 11 did.
We all, including the church, must be continually cleansed.
No, not a different Gospel; a different understanding for sure. I wouldn’t worry about it being a different Gospel if I were you.More than a dilemma, and “too bad”, because you present that which constitutes “a different gospel”, I would be accursed!
Jesus is infallible. He told us He chose Judas for His purpose. The sin of Judas did not speak of any weakness of God. The possible wrong understandings of the CC does not mean God is weak or going back on His promise. It just means God choses whom He will for His purposes.
You’re making at least two assuptions. 1. That Mary was the only human (except Jesus) that is ‘full of Grace’ and 2. That if Mary had God given sex with her husband, then she would no longer be ‘full of Grace’ and would be tainted by sin.