Where in the Bible does it say to not eat meat on Friday's of Lent?

[dronald]

No, you’ve only answered two of them. You’re ignoring the third one, so I’ll reframe it.

You insist Matthew 6:16 means that no one should know when a Christian is fasting. Here are the quotes which absolutely demonstrate that:

Actually, I’m having a pleasant discussion with one of the members of this forum who is actually pleasant. In fact, another poster explained that both of our practices are beneficial which I agreed with and commended for an excellent explanation.

As for your final question that you believe I’ve “weaseled out of” I’ll waste my time again and help you out.

How many references from a variety of recognized Protestant Scholars that are opposed to your interpretation of Matthew 6:16, would cause you to admit you’re wrong?

The way you’ve phrased this continues to speak volumes of your arrogance. Luckily I know plenty of Catholics outside and within this board to know they aren’t as rude and uncharitable as you.

So yes, you may post whatever you want; welcome to a discussion board.

 

[Sirach2]

Actually, I’m having a pleasant discussion with one of the members of this forum who is actually pleasant. In fact, another poster explained that both of our practices are beneficial which I agreed with and commended for an excellent explanation.

It is probably by PM, then, because there are no such discussions to be found in a search of your posts.

As for your final question that you believe I’ve “weaseled out of” I’ll waste my time again and help you out.

It is very disingenuous to pick faults at Catholic doctrine, and then run and hide when someone asks you to explain yourself. :tsktsk: Who’s the rude one, hm? Post after post after post by you challenging our faith (which is a no-no per forum rules), but no viable answer when you are asked to defend them.

 

[JustStarting]

Luckily I know plenty of Catholics outside and within this board to know they aren’t as rude and uncharitable as you.

Now here is something we can agree on. I am NOT very good at diplomacy. I’m trying to learn, but I’m still not very good at it. It is a particular fault of mine that I debate very aggressively, particularly when I believe someone is avoiding my question. Kind of like a Pitbull on a pork loin. It is true that I need to be more charitable. Much more.

**However that does not change the fact that you still haven’t posted an answer to my question and I don’t think you will.

But-- I certainly do not want to offend you any further, so please accept my apologies in this regard. I am willing to let this particular issue go and hope that in the next discussion we can start over.**

 

[dronald]

It is probably by PM, then, because there are no such discussions to be found in a search of your posts.

See; my discussion with Gorgias and post #56 from Razanir.

It is very disingenuous to pick faults at Catholic doctrine, and then run and hide when someone asks you to explain yourself. Who’s the rude one, hm? :tsktsk:

What? I’m still here obviously…

And in a discussion about disagreements over doctrine would you prefer that all of the non-Catholics simply let everyone else agree with each other and misrepresent other’s positions? The only reason I began posting was the ridiculous idea that Evangelicals don’t believe in Fasting. (or non-Catholic Christians in general)

Regardless, to touch on your point; no one has broken down the passages that I have posted. Some have chosen to believe half of it and disregard the last half. Calling me rude for disagreeing on an Apologetic forum confuses me.

 

[Sirach2]

See; my discussion with Gorgias and post #56 from Razanir.

What? I’m still here obviously…

And in a discussion about disagreements over doctrine would you prefer that all of the non-Catholics simply let everyone else agree with each other and misrepresent other’s positions? The only reason I began posting was the ridiculous idea that Evangelicals don’t believe in Fasting. (or non-Catholic Christians in general).

No, you were not debating the issue of fasting, per se, which was an obvious exhortation from Christ, but your hammering and nit-picking about doing it in secret, implying that Catholics are wrong and/or ostentatious. No debate, just point-blank assertion. Count 'em - 23 posts so far, with no concession whatsoever that you may be wrong about our beliefs.

Edit: If I was a betting man, I would bet that Gorgias and Razanir finally realized the futility of trying to reason with you, and bowed out. I could sense their frustration.

 

[dronald]

Now here is something we can agree on. I am NOT very good at diplomacy. I’m trying to learn, but I’m still not very good at it. It is a particular fault of mine that I debate very aggressively, particularly when I believe someone is avoiding my question. Kind of like a Pitbull on a pork loin. It is true that I need to be more charitable. Much more.

However that does not change the fact that you still haven’t posted an answer to my question and I don’t think you will.

But-- I certainly do not want to offend you any further, so please accept my apologies in this regard. I am willing to let this particular issue go and hope that in the next discussion we can start over.

No worries. I can understand your frustration if you feel that I’m dodging questions; perhaps because of the way they’ve been phrased it’s blinded me… I’m not really sure because I feel like I’ve answered them to be sincerely honest with you.

I don’t have an issue with the article you posted and it’s very informative. I don’t believe it contradicts how I practice my fasting.

"Some practiced this type of fasting as a means of seeking to gain the reputation of being godly. “In order to be seen”, they disfigured their external appearance so as to appear to be fasting. This was deliberately planned hypocrisy.”

I agree with this, and the “secret” part I get from passage 18. Could you perhaps explain what Jesus meant by, “your Father who sees you in secret” and maybe we can take it from there.

 

[dronald]

No, you were not debating the issue of fasting, per se, which was an obvious exhortation from Christ, but your hammering and nit-picking about doing it in secret, implying that Catholics are wrong and/or ostentatious. No debate, just point-blank assertion. Count 'em - 23 posts so far, with no concession whatsoever that you may be wrong about our beliefs.

I was certainly wrong to think that Catholics believe all Christians should follow lent. It’s only a requirement for Catholics which is understandable.

Unless of course I’m wrong about this?

 

[JustStarting]

No, you were not debating the issue of fasting, per se, which was an obvious exhortation from Christ, but your hammering and nit-picking about doing it in secret, implying that Catholics are wrong and/or ostentatious. No debate, just point-blank assertion. Count 'em - 23 posts so far, with no concession whatsoever that you may be wrong about our beliefs.

I wish I could/would have said it that way…

 

[JustStarting]

I agree with this, and the “secret” part I get from passage 18. Could you perhaps explain what Jesus meant by, “your Father who sees you in secret” and maybe we can take it from there.

Well I DID say I would bow out… do you still want me to continue? I have had my rabies booster this year so you are in no real danger.

 

[jmcrae]

I was certainly wrong to think that Catholics believe all Christians should follow lent. It’s only a requirement for Catholics which is understandable.

Unless of course I’m wrong about this?

No - only Catholics are bound to Catholic law.

However, given that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ, and is the only religion on earth that was, it strikes me that it would be not a bad thing for other Christians to do voluntarily the things that Catholics are required by Christ’s law for Catholics to do.

 

[marywarfield]

I was certainly wrong to think that Catholics believe all Christians should follow lent. It’s only a requirement for Catholics which is understandable.

Unless of course I’m wrong about this?

While we would like all to join us as Catholics we follow
Catholic teaching. What you do is up to you.

 

[Gorgias]

Frustrated? Who, me?

I agree with this, and the “secret” part I get from passage 18. Could you perhaps explain what Jesus meant by, “your Father who sees you in secret” and maybe we can take it from there.

Certainly!

To begin with, I think that the translation you cite is not a particularly good one. I know that the “God’s Word” translation renders it in this way, and the NIV does something similar (“and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you”). Yet, most versions do not make the leap of ascribing the actions of the fasting person as actions done ‘in secret’; for example, the KJV gives “and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee”. On the Catholic side of things, the RSV-CE offers “and your Father who sees in secret will reward you”, while the NAB gives us “[a]nd your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.”

So, the first insight here, I think, is that a translation that places ‘you’ as the object of what the Father sees in secret, is a translation that’s suspect. But, if that’s my claim, then I should be able to support it not just by pointing to a multiplicity of translations; rather, there should be good cause in the original for my claim.

In Greek (here, I’m quoting the Nestle GNT) we have καὶ ὁ Πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ ἀποδώσει σοι. This breaks down as follows:

καὶ ὁ Πατήρ σου (“and your Father”)
ὁ βλέπων (“the one who sees”)
ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ (“in secret”)
ἀποδώσει σοι (“will reward you”)

So, when we look at the Greek, we see that the main clause is “your Father will reward you”, and the only reference to ‘secret’ is a reference that describes ‘your Father’ – he’s ‘the one who sees in secret.’ Yet, doesn’t that prove your point? After all, if God the Father is explicitly referenced as seeing in secret, doesn’t this naturally imply that the reason He sees you is that you’re acting in secret?

I don’t think so; the reference to ‘in secret’ looks backward and towards God, not forward and towards those who fast. Again, looking at (the first half of) v.18 in the Greek: ὅπως μὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύων ἀλλὰ τῷ Πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ

ὅπως μὴ φανῇς (“so that you might not appear”)
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (“to people”)
νηστεύων ("(as one who is) fasting")
ἀλλὰ τῷ Πατρί σου (“but to your Father”)
τῷ (“to (the one (who is))”)
ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ (“in secret”)

So, the notion of being ‘secret’ refers to God – He is “in secret”. This is critical: we, as humans, only see things on their surface – we only see appearances. However, God, whose gaze penetrates the surface, knows all things.

As we move from this first half of the verse to the second half (beginning “your Father who sees…”), we understand what is being said here: God sees our intentions, and His view is not limited to surface appearances. So, when we do not put on the appearance of fasting, He sees our intent, and rewards us for not being vapid, appearance-only Christians.

Does this mean that we are being told to fast in secret? No; rather, we’re being told not to be people who are interested only in appearances. That’s a far cry from instructing us to ‘fast in secret’.

 

[JustStarting]

Does this mean that we are being told to fast in secret? No; rather, we’re being told not to be people who are interested only in appearances. That’s a far cry from instructing us to ‘fast in secret’.

WOW!

We had the same point, but you’ve got the skills to back it up.
Maybe someday I’ll be that knowledgeable… being so would fulfill a dream!

All I’ve got is the ability to look up and read references from people smarter than me!
And now? YOU’RE on the list! :bowdown:

Thanks for that!

 

[dronald]

Edit: If I was a betting man, I would bet that Gorgias and Razanir finally realized the futility of trying to reason with you, and bowed out. I could sense their frustration.

I’m not a gambling man myself, but I conceded with Razanir and said his explanation was “A+”. Not that he needs my approval, but I appreciated his thought out post that helped me learn something new. So I’ll disagree with you here.

As for Gorgias; I havn’t exactly sensed that because he seems genuine to me. Again, not like he needs my approval but he’s been excellent in this discussion and I appreciate his contribution so very much.

Frustrated? Who, me?

Certainly!

To begin with, I think that the translation you cite is not a particularly good one. I know that the “God’s Word” translation renders it in this way, and the NIV does something similar (“and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you”). Yet, most versions do not make the leap of ascribing the actions of the fasting person as actions done ‘in secret’; for example, the KJV gives “and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee”. On the Catholic side of things, the RSV-CE offers “and your Father who sees in secret will reward you”, while the NAB gives us “[a]nd your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.”

So, the first insight here, I think, is that a translation that places ‘you’ as the object of what the Father sees in secret, is a translation that’s suspect. But, if that’s my claim, then I should be able to support it not just by pointing to a multiplicity of translations; rather, there should be good cause in the original for my claim.

In Greek (here, I’m quoting the Nestle GNT) we have καὶ ὁ Πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ ἀποδώσει σοι. This breaks down as follows:

καὶ ὁ Πατήρ σου (“and your Father”)
ὁ βλέπων (“the one who sees”)
ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ (“in secret”)
ἀποδώσει σοι (“will reward you”)

So, when we look at the Greek, we see that the main clause is “your Father will reward you”, and the only reference to ‘secret’ is a reference that describes ‘your Father’ – he’s ‘the one who sees in secret.’ Yet, doesn’t that prove your point? After all, if God the Father is explicitly referenced as seeing in secret, doesn’t this naturally imply that the reason He sees you is that you’re acting in secret?

I don’t think so; the reference to ‘in secret’ looks backward and towards God, not forward and towards those who fast. Again, looking at (the first half of) v.18 in the Greek: ὅπως μὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύων ἀλλὰ τῷ Πατρί σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ

ὅπως μὴ φανῇς (“so that you might not appear”)
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (“to people”)
νηστεύων ("(as one who is) fasting")
ἀλλὰ τῷ Πατρί σου (“but to your Father”)
τῷ (“to (the one (who is))”)
ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ (“in secret”)

So, the notion of being ‘secret’ refers to God – He is “in secret”. This is critical: we, as humans, only see things on their surface – we only see appearances. However, God, whose gaze penetrates the surface, knows all things.

As we move from this first half of the verse to the second half (beginning “your Father who sees…”), we understand what is being said here: God sees our intentions, and His view is not limited to surface appearances. So, when we do not put on the appearance of fasting, He sees our intent, and rewards us for not being vapid, appearance-only Christians.

Does this mean that we are being told to fast in secret? No; rather, we’re being told not to be people who are interested only in appearances. That’s a far cry from instructing us to ‘fast in secret’.

Although I do agree that putting on a show is an extreme that God abhors, I also do believe that making it entirely unknown to others that you’re fasting for Christ is the highest level of morality. If I were to fast and no one ever know I’m fasting, I feel is better than telling people. I really do like to keep it a secret between God and I.

It’s similar when Jesus says, “when giving don’t sound a trumpet.” Okay, so what we have here now is an extreme; the worst of the worst, that is “sounding a trumpet.” But Jesus doesn’t stop there, He even goes so far as to say “Don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” And then again states, “your Father who sees you in secret will reward you.”

I understand your case on “intentions” and I agree vehemently, but I believe Jesus brings things to a higher, more extreme, opposite end of the spectrum, level. “Don’t sound a trumpet, but not only that; your left hand shouldn’t even know!” “Don’t look gloomy, but not only that; wash up!” Do you understand why I feel this way based on all of His words?

Thanks again for a thought provoking discussion and thank you for all the effort, especially the Greek!

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)