Prove it!

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

its only the protestant faiths that make any differentiation between Catholic and catholic. For 1500 years they were the same. So to say that they were not referring to the Catholic church (the ONLY true church at the time, check with St. Augustine if you dont believe me) is fallacious, fatuous, and downright wrong. Again, sorry, but its the truth.

FSC

Okey dokey. I’ll give St. Augustine a call (because St. Augustine is my authority.) Thanks for your comments and opinion - much appreciated.

 

[tweetymom]

Okey dokey. I’ll give St. Augustine a call (because St. Augustine is my authority.) Thanks for your comments and opinion - much appreciated.

:tiphat:

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

And you know this because??? Someone told you but the scriptures say different.

No, because the scriptures told me so, and because it was verified by the only authority I trust to be led by the Holy Spirit, the CC

Okey dokey. I’ll give St. Augustine a call (because St. Augustine is my authority.) Thanks for your comments and opinion - much appreciated.

lol, Thanks for always having a good attitude, it perks up my day (and I am not being sarcastic). But in all honesty, you should give him a call. he is an authority on the early church, being one of the doctors of the Church and a Church father. He pioneered most of the theology you and I use today. he also historically presented the Church as it was at the time and the heresies present at the time. Far wiser than I am he was (sorry, my internal yoda comes out now and again) and though I cannot know this for sure, I would bet that he spent more time in study of the word than either of us ever will. So I trust his judgment.

And I think it is somewhat Ironic that tweety is laughing at the thought of looking at a father of the Church she thinks she is a part of… Very ironic. Might as well laugh at the thought of taking the Pope as having authority over the Catholic Church… oh wait… never mind.

FSC

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

No, because the scriptures told me so, and because it was verified by the only authority I trust to be led by the Holy Spirit, the CC

lol, Thanks for always having a good attitude, it perks up my day (and I am not being sarcastic). But in all honesty, you should give him a call. he is an authority on the early church, being one of the doctors of the Church and a Church father. He pioneered most of the theology you and I use today. he also historically presented the Church as it was at the time and the heresies present at the time. Far wiser than I am he was (sorry, my internal yoda comes out now and again) and though I cannot know this for sure, I would bet that he spent more time in study of the word than either of us ever will. So I trust his judgment.

And I think it is somewhat Ironic that tweety is laughing at the thought of looking at a father of the Church she thinks she is a part of… Very ironic. Might as well laugh at the thought of taking the Pope as having authority over the Catholic Church… oh wait… never mind.

FSC

Oh, please let me state and make clear that I admire the Pope and folks like St. Augustine. These are fine upstanding individuals (past and present) who deserve our respect, and are human like us, with good points and not so good points. As such I think the Pope has a sense of humor (probably has to in his position) and would find things about himself to laugh at (as we all do).

Thanks for listening and really, thanks for your comments. I truly enjoy understanding why people believe what they believe.

 

[Dokimas]

originally posted by fidesspescarita
he was not saying the nt was crumbs, but that your reading of it got only crumbs, not whole bread. It’s better to say i’m only capable of getting crumbs than call the nt crumbs. Better to judge me than the word of god. He was not judging the word of god, he was saying that you receive but crumbs. Not that the nt was crumbs.

Original: Mary would not have gone against the will of god and god would not have gone against the law.
Doki: Was it lawful for jesus to have his disciples pluck corn of the sabaath?
Fsc: If he had them do it then yes. Hed broke no ot laws, since they are the word of god

doki response: I was against the law, jesus did let his disciple pick corn on the sabaath. Jesus fulfilled the law. Therefore, jesus could have told john to take care of his mother even though the law made a different provision for the mother when the eldest son died.

Original: This would signify that they did not believe (if he had siblings) that he was the christ, or even that he was a prophet. So they would have pitched a fit if their brother tried to break the law.
Doki: Or they would have obeyed the will of their mother who would have obeyed jesus’ wishes.
Fsc: The will of a woman at the time was entirely subject to men. There would have been no way they would have followed the will of their mother. They would have followed their law.

Doki response: Or they obeyed their older brother’s command; He would have had the legal right to make provision for his mother.

 

[izoid]

Refer me to the passage or passages that tells us Jesus expect fasting from all Christians and if that’s what it says, I’ll agree with it. If this is your answer to how can the CC call not fasting on Friday a sin, then why did they change the rule? If the rule was to obey the command of Jesus, did Jesus change His mind?

Matthew 6:16; “and when you”. This implies an expectation that it is to occur. If it was optional it would be, “if you”.

I do not know the history of fasting and meatless Fridays. I do believe that others have already addressed that in this thread however.

 

[Dokimas]

Matthew 6:16; “and when you”. This implies an expectation that it is to occur. If it was optional it would be, “if you”.

I do not know the history of fasting and meatless Fridays. I do believe that others have already addressed that in this thread however.

Do you anoint your head when you fast? Or, was it the practice of the CC to anoint their heads on Fridays when they fast because in the Matthew 6 passage (v17) Jesus said to anoint the head?

 

[tweetymom]

No, because the scriptures told me so, and because it was verified by the only authority I trust to be led by the Holy Spirit, the CC

lol, Thanks for always having a good attitude, it perks up my day (and I am not being sarcastic). But in all honesty, you should give him a call. he is an authority on the early church, being one of the doctors of the Church and a Church father. He pioneered most of the theology you and I use today. he also historically presented the Church as it was at the time and the heresies present at the time. Far wiser than I am he was (sorry, my internal yoda comes out now and again) and though I cannot know this for sure, I would bet that he spent more time in study of the word than either of us ever will. So I trust his judgment.

And I think it is somewhat Ironic that tweety is laughing at the thought of looking at a father of the Church she thinks she is a part of… Very ironic. Might as well laugh at the thought of taking the Pope as having authority over the Catholic Church… oh wait… never mind.

FSC

Once again you are so wrong and tell me where it says in Scripture that Mary and Joseph never had sex. I wasn’t laughing at anybody just caught my laugh bone to Jars post. You sure are liking to be judgmental.

 

[izoid]

Do you anoint your head when you fast? Or, was it the practice of the CC to anoint their heads on Fridays when they fast because in the Matthew 6 passage (v17) Jesus said to anoint the head?

I think the question you need to answer is whether Christians are expected to fast. You can divert all you want but it is only a reflection of the weakness of your argument.

Why do you have such difficulty with this subject?

 

[Dokimas]

I think the question you need to answer is whether Christians are expected to fast. You can divert all you want but it is only a reflection of the weakness of your argument.

Why do you have such difficulty with this subject?

Here’s the verse you quoted with the next verse. Notice both uses the same words that you interpreted as a command from Jesus.

Mt 6:16 "Moreover, **when you **fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.
Mt 6:17 "But you, **when you **fast, anoint your head and wash your face,​

If ‘when you’ means a command then surely Jesus is commanding to anoint your head and wash you face when fasting.​

I sure I have many weaknesses but I’m not sure in this case you’re accurate I’m diverting. I think what’s happening, is that those verses aren’t to be taken as commands to fast.

 

[izoid]

Here’s the verse you quoted with the next verse. Notice both uses the same words that you interpreted as a command from Jesus.

Mt 6:16 "Moreover, **when you **fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.
Mt 6:17 "But you, **when you **fast, anoint your head and wash your face,​

If ‘when you’ means a command then surely Jesus is commanding to anoint your head and wash you face when fasting.​

I sure I have many weaknesses but I’m not sure in this case you’re accurate I’m diverting. I think what’s happening, is that those verses aren’t to be taken as commands to fast.

Once again, I will ask the same question that you do not seem to want to answer.

According to the verse in Matthew; does Jesus have an expectation that His followers will fast?

I never used this verse in an attempt to state that Jesus commands us to fast. Those are your words. Does Jesus set an expectation that we will fast?

 

[Des]

Let’s look at it from the point of view of those you mention: the lurkers and seekers. If I was a lurker and I read your post I’d say, ‘Maybe this TweetyMom had a good reason to distance herself from the CC.’

Why, because you personally see it as an attack? Give me a break.

This is not a private forum. If you have harsh things for TweetyMom there is a way to say them and not in public. Remember, she is one loved by Jesus too.

Harsh? I say it on the forum so the LURKERS can read my post. PM wouldn’t solve anything. What part of that do you not get? TweetyMom has been around long enough to know the wrong she’s doing. You want to defend that, be my guest. You think my PMing her would get her to see the light. You must be dreaming sir.​

As for my business: it’s my business to stand up for the weeker when under attack. And on this forum, it becomes my business because none of your catholic friends put sayings like yours in its place. If other catholics would make a stand against such attacks, then us non-catholics would not have to.

lol, such attacks? I speak stern and truthful to her. Again, it’s none of your business since she disguises herself as Catholic and talks like you. A Protestant. And it’s our business to defend the integrity of this forum whether you like it or not.

BTW, it wasn’t Timothy that wrote 1 Timothy.

You misunderstood my post. When I said Timothy I didn’t mean the man Timothy. I was meaning the book Timothy.​

-Your last statement seems to, in your thinking, place the tradition of the CC over the Bible. Sounds (can’t find the right term here) … to me.

Another misunderstanding by you.

I think TweetyMom’s warnings may be the loving statements over the last several posts if your statement is the belief of catholics.

How about explaining exactly what you mean here. I’m not following.

 

[Des]

Fasting is not suffering.

You obviously don’t fast.

 

[Des]

Once again you are so wrong and tell me where it says in Scripture that Mary and Joseph never had sex. I wasn’t laughing at anybody just caught my laugh bone to Jars post. You sure are liking to be judgmental.

Scripture doesn’t say they had sex. So don’t assume it like a regular marriage unless every woman of today is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. If it doesn’t say they had sexual relations, then adding to it is preaching your own made up doctrines.

 

[Dokimas]

Scripture doesn’t say they had sex. So don’t assume it like a regular marriage unless every woman of today is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. If it doesn’t say they had sexual relations, then adding to it is preaching your own made up doctrines.

The Bible says they didn’t have sex until Jesus was born. The Bible doens’t say they never had sex. For you to say they didn’t have sex is to say something that isn’t in the Bible.

 

[tweetymom]

Why, because you personally see it as an attack? Give me a break.

Harsh? I say it on the forum so the LURKERS can read my post. PM wouldn’t solve anything. What part of that do you not get? TweetyMom has been around long enough to know the wrong she’s doing. You want to defend that, be my guest. You think my PMing her would get her to see the light. You must be dreaming sir.​

lol, such attacks? I speak stern and truthful to her. Again, it’s none of your business since she disguises herself as Catholic and talks like you. A Protestant. And it’s our business to defend the integrity of this forum whether you like it or not.

You misunderstood my post. When I said Timothy I didn’t mean the man Timothy. I was meaning the book Timothy.​

Another misunderstanding by you.

How about explaining exactly what you mean here. I’m not following.

You know what your postings concerning me do? They go in one ear and out the other because I am not a Catholic that does not question nor am I brainwashed. I am washed in the blood of the Lamb, Jesus.

Gods blessing to you as you continue on your journey with Christ and may His light shine on you and your family. Merry Christmas.

 

[izoid]

Scripture doesn’t say they had sex. So don’t assume it like a regular marriage unless every woman of today is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. If it doesn’t say they had sexual relations, then adding to it is preaching your own made up doctrines.

YOu need to understand that Tweety likes to argue from the position that states the absence of information must necessarily validate her position. What she fails to recognize is that there is no confirmation of her position either. She has a clear double standard, if it does not directly oppose her position then her position must be true even though there is no clear statement confirming that position.

Don’t bother responding Tweety…I have you on ignore so I won’t see it anyway.

 

[tweetymom]

Scripture doesn’t say they had sex. So don’t assume it like a regular marriage unless every woman of today is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. If it doesn’t say they had sexual relations, then adding to it is preaching your own made up doctrines.

And the last chapter in Matthew, He knew her not until after Jesus was born means?

 

[Des]

The Bible says they didn’t have sex until Jesus was born. The Bible doens’t say they never had sex. For you to say they didn’t have sex is to say something that isn’t in the Bible.

Look up the word until. It doesn’t mean what it does in English. So the Bible isn’t saying what you want it to say unfortunately for you.

 

[izoid]

The Bible says they didn’t have sex until Jesus was born. The Bible doens’t say they never had sex. For you to say they didn’t have sex is to say something that isn’t in the Bible.

For you to say they did have sex is to say something that is not in the Bible.