Prove it!

[Dokimas]

Never will, never happen.Catholics aren’t born again?

I’m sure there are ‘born again’ Catholics. Probably many, many. Just because a person doesn’t understand the term, doesn’t mean they can’t be born again.​

My Mom is the most wonderful Christian I know. She loves the Lord, love to serve people, reads the Bible each day, prays each day and I don’t think she would label herself ‘born again’, not because she’s against it but because she doesn’t have that term as part of her vocabulary; she done’t understand it. BTW, she is not catholic; she never was.

 

[tweetymom]

I’m sure there are ‘born again’ Catholics. Probably many, many. Just because a person doesn’t understand the term, doesn’t mean they can’t be born again.​

My Mom is the most wonderful Christian I know. She loves the Lord, love to serve people, reads the Bible each day, prays each day and I don’t think she would label herself ‘born again’, not because she’s against it but because she doesn’t have that term as part of her vocabulary; she done’t understand it. BTW, she is not catholic; she never was.

Amen and God be praised for your mom. I myself was born again when I was 38 and I know it is a very real and something I have never experienced before or after, and I thank God everyday.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

Let me ask you; is it more sacraficial to remain celibate inside of marriage or outside? Which is the more difficult path?

Is it sacrificial to remain celibate in a marriage? No, it’s not sacrificial - it’s wrong and mean to the spouse. Marriages aren’t meant to be celibate. Man and woman are joined together physically and spiritually. To be celibate in a marriage - to deny a spouse intimacy - is not a good thing. I’m sure if a couple went to a priest, pastor, or other advisor for counseling and the husband or wife said they haven’t been intimate - the advisor would indeed say there was something wrong.

Are there folks out there who marry and remain celibate? In THIS crazy world I’m sure there are, but they certainly don’t reflect the married life that God wants us to have.

Is it sacrificial to remain celibate outside marriage? Sacrificial? No. We are simply refraining from doing something we should not do in the first place.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Let me ask you; is it more sacraficial to remain celibate inside of marriage or outside? Which is the more difficult path?

I guess the last word goes with God doesn’t it…Mary was a vessel, a willing vessel that God used to give birth to Jesus…Joseph, because of an angel from God did not make accusations against her and kept her from stoning and married her. She gave birth to Jesus thus she and Joseph could now be husband and wife. He “Knew” her after Jesus was born…the word Know and Knew ment that sex occured…really simple…She was a virgin until she gave birth then the operative word is her husband then KNEW her…Mary was not a perpetual virgin…I am not saying that the Bible says it.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Sorry but I don’t understand what this has to do with the price of tea in China.​

At what point does the Scriptures tell us the priests took the tablets, bowl of Manna and Aaron’s rod that budded out of Ark?​

A wonderful book (which may not be still in print) is the book by Dr M. R. DeHaan entitles ‘The Tabernacle’. He shows that each part of the Tabernacle is a forshadowing of something about Jesus including the ark.

indeed, including the Ark. The Ark that was so Holy and Sanctified that to touch it unworthily was to bring death upon yourself.

There are many references in the OT regarding use of those things which have been sanctified for the use of God. Those things that have been made HOLY by God and for God. See Merriam Webster for the definition of HOLY. or see my post above (pg 67 I think, cant remember the post number). To use something which has been sanctified for the use of God as a common object or vessel was the highest insult to God, hence why the Jews got/get so upset when their temples were ransacked and the items taken and used by others for purposes other than their intent. If, as you admit, Mary was chosen from the beginning to be the Theotokos then she was clearly sanctified for the Lords use, and would have been used for no other purpose. Joseph clearly knew that Mary was bearing the son of God, as is attested to in Matthew, so he would have understood her as being sanctified. As a devout Jew (which can be assumed by all since God would not have chosen someone less to assist in the raising of his son) he would never have used Gods chosen vessel for something so ordinary.

I’m sure there are ‘born again’ Catholics. Probably many, many. Just because a person doesn’t understand the term, doesn’t mean they can’t be born again.​

My Mom is the most wonderful Christian I know. She loves the Lord, love to serve people, reads the Bible each day, prays each day and I don’t think she would label herself ‘born again’, not because she’s against it but because she doesn’t have that term as part of her vocabulary; she done’t understand it. BTW, she is not catholic; she never was.

All devout Catholics are born again, but the sense it has come to mean in modern society is different than its intent. It has become the rallying cry of certain Churches and it has become equivalent to the question “Do you believe as I believe?” and as such I will not use it to describe myself.

 

[Dokimas]

Your phrase just made me laugh. And it is quite interesting to me that you seem to believe that Mary’s only purpose was to carry Christ then she was done, and that her choice, her Fiat, was something… (inevitable?) and not worthy of praise. I don’t mean to be unkind here but you have a hard time understanding what I believe or you have not really read much of what I’ve said so you read into what I say what’s not intended about Mary or you’re purposely ignoring what I’ve said. Whatever the reason, you have no clue what I think about Mary. I’d stop putting your wrong ideas about another persons belief; it is unbecoming for you. I have stated on more than one time on this forum that I believe Mary is a wonderful example for all of lus of how a Christian should be. I have taught several times on the importance of Christians looking to her example. She is worthy of as much thanks for her life as any Spirit filled person like Peter, Paul, John etc. IMO, only God is worthy of praise.

If he knew all along who he would choose, then why is it so hard to accept that maybe, just maybe God could set something aside as sacred and Holy? Check out my last post for a discussion on that. He could have done what He wanted to. He could have just turned up on the seen with the age of 30. The point, for Jesus to be born of Mary, Mary didn’t have to be free from sin. She just needed to be willing and obedient.

See, now this is what makes me finally realize the futility of arguing with fatuity. It gets you nowhere and only ends with frustration. If someone chooses to persist in willful ignorance they will do so, regardless of the truth laid out before them. (here is where Doki and Tweety cut my post and insert AMEN). I cannot begin to explain how comical it is to me to hear the SAME arguments time and time again, without change, in repetition ad nauseum despite having been countered numerous times by numerous people far wiser than me. Let’s be honest, you’re speaking of both sides of this issue, aren’t you. Come on, be honest with yourself.
And still, even after the same old tired worn-out arguments, with the same tired and worn-out points being dragged out, it comes back to a stubborn and willful ignorance and pride. Sounds like you’re speaking of your side, your side says its truths go back to Peter. Can’t be older than that. That “I know that I am right, so everyone else is wrong and I will find a way to have the Bible say what fits my world view” I’ve not ever denied I believe what I believe to be true. I’ve also NOT denied I could be incorrect. Now try to be honest … You think your understanding through the CC is correct and mine is incorrect when it differs. The difference is you and your church CANNOT be incorrect. (and doki, I know that you will deny this, but that IS what you do). Or in the case of tweety “I am a Catholic who not only goes down the cafeteria line choosing what I would like and not like, but what I do not like I will shout from the rooftops that all Catholics should not eat of that bit in the cafeteria”. Both stances are wrong. SEE, I told you so … You’re telling all those that have a different understanding that they are wrong. I wonder is this rises to the height of hypocracy?

When you choose to ignore the pile of evidence that is presented you Ditto right back at you.
become more than my patience can bear. God bless PR and Guano for having the patience and force of will to keep hashing out the same points over and again, but I am not sure that I can do this any more.
Man, Im too young to be this tired…

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Is it sacrificial to remain celibate in a marriage? No, it’s not sacrificial - it’s wrong and mean to the spouse. Marriages aren’t meant to be celibate. Man and woman are joined together physically and spiritually. To be celibate in a marriage - to deny a spouse intimacy - is not a good thing. I’m sure if a couple went to a priest, pastor, or other advisor for counseling and the husband or wife said they haven’t been intimate - the advisor would indeed say there was something wrong.

Are there folks out there who marry and remain celibate? In THIS crazy world I’m sure there are, but they certainly don’t reflect the married life that God wants us to have.

Is it sacrificial to remain celibate outside marriage? Sacrificial? No. We are simply refraining from doing something we should not do in the first place.

When both members in a marriage agree to celibacy it is NOT a bad thing. It is NOT mean, cruel, or any variant thereof. To assume that marriages must always include sex is to force your views into the Bible and upon Gods word. Can you cite me a reference for where the Bible says that marriage and sex go together like a horse and carriage?

I guess the last word goes with God doesn’t it…Mary was a vessel, a willing vessel that God used to give birth to Jesus…Joseph, because of an angel from God did not make accusations against her and kept her from stoning and married her. She gave birth to Jesus thus she and Joseph could now be husband and wife. He “Knew” her after Jesus was born…the word Know and Knew ment that sex occured…really simple…She was a virgin until she gave birth then the operative word is her husband then KNEW her…Mary was not a perpetual virgin…I am not saying that the Bible says it.

Show me the quote where it says that Joseph knew Mary. And the statement knew her not until has been thrashed to death many times, so that verse must be left out. Give me a passage that says anything like “Joseph knew Mary after the birth of jesus”. Something that is a definitive statement, declarative is the word I think… Sorry, Im not firing on all cylinders right now, only got about 2 hours of sleep.

 

[izoid]

I’m sure there are ‘born again’ Catholics. Probably many, many. Just because a person doesn’t understand the term, doesn’t mean they can’t be born again.​

My Mom is the most wonderful Christian I know. She loves the Lord, love to serve people, reads the Bible each day, prays each day and I don’t think she would label herself ‘born again’, not because she’s against it but because she doesn’t have that term as part of her vocabulary; she done’t understand it. BTW, she is not catholic; she never was.

The problem is that Tweety uses the term to cause division. She is clearly identifying herself to be separate and different than other Catholics. The term “born again” is a label that protestants embrace to identify themselves as different than others. This is Tweety’s intention.

 

[Dokimas]

All devout Catholics are born again, but the sense it has come to mean in modern society is different than its intent. It has become the rallying cry of certain Churches and it has become equivalent to the question “Do you believe as I believe?” and as such I will not use it to describe myself. Using this logic, why do you use the term Catholic or Christian to describe yourself. The first time the term Christian use, its believe it was a put down. Both terms are hated and misused and misunderstood all over the world. So again I ask, using your logic, why call yourself Catholic or Christian (you do see yourself as Christian, don’t you?) Your attitude toward non-catholic Christians is the ‘you don’t believe as I do’; again your statement here seems hypocritical.

 

[izoid]

I guess the last word goes with God doesn’t it…Mary was a vessel, a willing vessel that God used to give birth to Jesus…Joseph, because of an angel from God did not make accusations against her and kept her from stoning and married her. She gave birth to Jesus thus she and Joseph could now be husband and wife. He “Knew” her after Jesus was born…the word Know and Knew ment that sex occured…really simple…She was a virgin until she gave birth then the operative word is her husband then KNEW her…Mary was not a perpetual virgin…I am not saying that the Bible says it.

The last word does go to God. Unfortunately you continue to fail in your attempts to show us where God states that they had sex. Chapter and verse please. If you can’t, stop using it as an argument.

 

[Dokimas]

The problem is that Tweety uses the term to cause division. She is clearly identifying herself to be separate and different than other Catholics. The term “born again” is a label that protestants embrace to identify themselves as different than others. This is Tweety’s intention.

So what? The most of Holy men said once, ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone.’ Are you going to continue to throw stones?

 

[tweetymom]

The problem is that Tweety uses the term to cause division. She is clearly identifying herself to be separate and different than other Catholics. The term “born again” is a label that protestants embrace to identify themselves as different than others. This is Tweety’s intention.

I know that I am on ignore but I am not trying to cause division. I only state born again because it happened to me, I have no intention here except Jesus. And by the way if I am on ignore don’t use my name in vain. And since you are so without sin I guess it is ok with God to cast stones?

 

[izoid]

Is it sacrificial to remain celibate in a marriage? No, it’s not sacrificial - it’s wrong and mean to the spouse. Marriages aren’t meant to be celibate. Man and woman are joined together physically and spiritually. To be celibate in a marriage - to deny a spouse intimacy - is not a good thing. I’m sure if a couple went to a priest, pastor, or other advisor for counseling and the husband or wife said they haven’t been intimate - the advisor would indeed say there was something wrong.

Are there folks out there who marry and remain celibate? In THIS crazy world I’m sure there are, but they certainly don’t reflect the married life that God wants us to have.

Is it sacrificial to remain celibate outside marriage? Sacrificial? No. We are simply refraining from doing something we should not do in the first place.

This is your opinion and I agree with you to an extent. Simply because it is “not right” in our society today does not mean that it was not right for Mary. If my daughter told me she was pregnant but was still a virgin, I would think that was CRAZY. The point is, Mary was not your typical woman. God used her in ways that He has not used any other woman on each. So, to attempt to typify her life based on current norms is what is truly CRAZY.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I don’t mean to be unkind here but you have a hard time understanding what I believe or you have not really read much of what I’ve said so you read into what I say what’s not intended about Mary or you’re purposely ignoring what I’ve said. Whatever the reason, you have no clue what I think about Mary. I’d stop putting your wrong ideas about another persons belief; it is unbecoming for you. I have stated on more than one time on this forum that I believe Mary is a wonderful example for all of lus of how a Christian should be. I have taught several times on the importance of Christians looking to her example. She is worthy of as much thanks for her life as any Spirit filled person like Peter, Paul, John etc. IMO, only God is worthy of praise.

Cant argue with your first point. We are all guilty of similar faults. But I DO understand where you are coming from and I do understand your points. I have come from your side, studied, researched, found them lacking, and come home to the Church of my father, God.

He could have done what He wanted to. He could have just turned up on the seen with the age of 30. The point, for Jesus to be born of Mary, Mary didn’t have to be free from sin. She just needed to be willing and obedient.

True, that is all that was necessary. But that is not all that God did. See the definitions given on various threads for kecharitomene.

Let’s be honest, you’re speaking of both sides of this issue, aren’t you. Come on, be honest with yourself.

If it were not true it would be the height of Pride. However, to speak the truth is not prideful (it can be, but most often is not).

Sounds like you’re speaking of your side, your side says its truths go back to Peter. Can’t be older than that.

Well, in that they come from Christ, they are, but our Church began with Peter at the Pentecost.

I’ve not ever denied I believe what I believe to be true. I’ve also NOT denied I could be incorrect. Now try to be honest … You think your understanding through the CC is correct and mine is incorrect when it differs. The difference is you and your church CANNOT be incorrect.

Glad we agree that my Church CANNOT be incorrect in matters of Faith and Morals.

SEE, I told you so … You’re telling all those that have a different understanding that they are wrong. I wonder is this rises to the height of hypocracy?

Perhaps it does. Yet, my authority is nothing. Thee authority of the one who taught me, the CC, is absolute. My understanding of what I have been taught is flawed and minimal, but the teachings have absolute authority that cannot be discounted without saying “I dont believe the Bible says that”. Jesus was explicit in his command to Peter to lead his sheep.

Ditto right back at you.

We are both annoying to each other lol I wonder how God sees us? That old adage comes to mind, if you want to make God laugh tell him your plans (here I would insert ideas).

Thank you for your honesty and willingness to fight for your beliefs. It is refreshing in this relativistic society we live in today.

FSC

 

[Dokimas]

When both members in a marriage agree to celibacy it is NOT a bad thing. It is NOT mean, cruel, or any variant thereof. To assume that marriages must always include sex is to force your views into the Bible and upon Gods word. Can you cite me a reference for where the Bible says that marriage and sex go together like a horse and carriage? Paul commands that husbands and wives only be ‘celebate’ for a short time. Was he inspired when he wrote that? Seems your argument could be with Saint Paul.

Show me the quote where it says that Joseph knew Mary. And the statement knew her not until has been thrashed to death many times, so that verse must be left out. Give me a passage that says anything like “Joseph knew Mary after the birth of jesus”. Something that is a definitive statement, declarative is the word I think… Sorry, Im not firing on all cylinders right now, only got about 2 hours of sleep. Again I ask for honesty here, honesty with yourself. We’ve shown over and over again that it is quite logical to believe from several verses that Joseph and Mary concumated their marriage and that they had children. Therefore it is up to you, for your understanding sake, to produce for yourself a verse or verses that say Mary was perpetually a virgin. If you want to convince me, it must be from the 27 books of the NT.

 

[izoid]

So what? The most of Holy men said once, ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone.’ Are you going to continue to throw stones?

No one is claiming to be without sin. Tweety claims to be a Catholic when she clearly does not hold to the Churches teachings. Pointing this out is not wrong.

BTW…pointing out the truth is not necessarily throwing stones. Remember…context, context, context.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Using this logic, why do you use the term Catholic or Christian to describe yourself. The first time the term Christian use, its believe it was a put down. Both terms are hated and misused and misunderstood all over the world. So again I ask, using your logic, why call yourself Catholic or Christian (you do see yourself as Christian, don’t you?) Your attitude toward non-catholic Christians is the ‘you don’t believe as I do’; again your statement here seems hypocritical.

Not at all. The term has become one that refers to denomination. hence why I will not use it. I label myself Catholic because I am a member (albeit in poor standing at the moment) of Christs visible Church. It is not hypocritical to say I will not label myself as something I am not (in regards to the current modernist usage of the term). If the term ever comes back to the true meaning of being born again of water and the spirit to serve Christ (as I am sure many people use it) then I will begin to use it again. But so long as it is understood as referring to that particular “brand” of Christianity it is anathema to me as a label.

So what? The most of Holy men said once, ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone.’ Are you going to continue to throw stones?

We are not casting stones. We are correcting one of our members (or claims to be)who is in error. Jesus commanded us to do this, so we do.

 

[Dokimas]

Cant argue with your first point. We are all guilty of similar faults. But I DO understand where you are coming from and I do understand your points. I have come from your side, studied, researched, found them lacking, and come home to the Church of my father, God. It you stand by your comments about what I think about Mary, you have no clue. Please don’t continue to be untruthful to yourself.

Glad we agree that my Church CANNOT be incorrect in matters of Faith and Morals. Ah, I mistyped. I meant to say that the difference is that you believe you and your church can’t be wrong on such issues. I’d caution you that this is quite a potentially danerous position.

Perhaps it does. Yet, my authority is nothing. Thee authority of the one who taught me, the CC, is absolute. My understanding of what I have been taught is flawed and minimal, but the teachings have absolute authority that cannot be discounted without saying “I dont believe the Bible says that”. Jesus was explicit in his command to Peter to lead his sheep. Actually, wasn’t the correct word, “Feed My sheep.” Of course you could be speaking of another verse.

Thank you for your honesty and willingness to fight for your beliefs. It is refreshing in this relativistic society we live in today. You’re welcome.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Again I ask for honesty here, honesty with yourself. We’ve shown over and over again that it is quite logical to believe from several verses that Joseph and Mary concumated their marriage and that they had children. Therefore it is up to you, for your understanding sake, to produce for yourself a verse or verses that say Mary was perpetually a virgin. If you want to convince me, it must be from the 27 books of the NT

I am being honest in that I /we have shown that it was not necessarily the case that they had sex after the birth of Jesus. You read into verses more than is written and therein lies your error. Would it have been sinful? no. Would it have been a dramatic break from all that has come before? Yes. Jesus said that he did not come to do away with the old law but to fulfill it. When the old law commands that we keep holy those things made holy by God, Jesus did not destroy that law. By allowing Mary to remain holy for the use of God he fulfilled that law.

Paul commands that husbands and wives only be ‘celebate’ for a short time. Was he inspired when he wrote that? Seems your argument could be with Saint Paul.

Nah, Saint Paul was a wiser man than I will ever be, if for no other reason than he saw Christ. Yet what is a short time? a month? A week? A yaer? 5 years? A day is a thousand years to God and a thousand years as one day. What is Gods frame of reference for a short time? Would God have allowed his Altar in the Temple to be used for supper by the laity? No. Explicitly NO. Would he have allowed the Theotokos to be used for common purposes? I cannot imagine so, when he has set his cannon so harshly against using ANYTHING sanctified for purposes other than those for which they were sanctified.

 

[Dokimas]

Not at all. The term has become one that refers to denomination. hence why I will not use it. I label myself Catholic because I am a member (albeit in poor standing at the moment) of Christs visible Church. It is not hypocritical to say I will not label myself as something I am not (in regards to the current modernist usage of the term). If the term ever comes back to the true meaning of being born again of water and the spirit to serve Christ (as I am sure many people use it) then I will begin to use it again. But so long as it is understood as referring to that particular “brand” of Christianity it is anathema to me as a label. The term Christian has been used by many and often by those who don’t even believe Jesus is God, that His Blood is of the utmost importance, they believe He didn’t rise again and yet you use the term Christian. So who care if a term Jesus used is misused!!! Using that term gives great opportunity to withness for Jesus.

We are not casting stones. We are correcting one of our members (or claims to be)who is in error. Jesus commanded us to do this, so we do. Seems that you are to me. I’m a weaker member, I guess ,so I’d appreciate it that you’d stop saying such things to Tweetymom./QUOTE]