Sirklawd Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 wait wait i can already see it "tradition dictates the definition of the word "near" so proximity of towns and parking lots to their respective lakes and stadiums is invalid" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Here's everything that I said that you chose to ignore. -Is he to believe that when it says Jesus went to Mt. Olive that he went all over the entire mountain? RESPONSE: No. Jesus went to the place he ascended from on Mt Olivet. ************************************************ -Is there a geographical boundary where one is at a location and one is not? RESPONSE: Yes. There is the village limits outside of which it wouldn't be called Bethany. If not in Bethany but on the mountain, it would be called Mt Olivet and not Bethany. That should be obvious. ******************************************************* -The base of mountain is still a part of the mountain isnt it? RESPONSE: Yes. But if there were a village there, the location would be referred to by the name of the village. For example, if I were going to Albany, I would say Albany. If I was going to the Adirondacks mountians only but not Albany, I would say Adirondacks and not Albany. ********************************************************* -A person who has just parked their car at a Red Sox game, and is walking to the door gets a phone call and tells the person "I'm at Fenway". Is this statement wrong simply because hes not in his seat? RESPONSE: He could say "I'm at Fenway," but that statement would be inaccurate if he were really in the Red Sox dugout. Plesae keep in mind that scripture is suppose to be inspired and cannot coexist with error. *********************************************** ALSO: If it was reported that I ascended today when it really was 40 days from now, that would be an inaccurate statement (and doubtfully "inspired") : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted July 27, 2005 Author Share Posted July 27, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 02:48 PM']Here's everything that I said that you chose to ignore. -Is he to believe that when it says Jesus went to Mt. Olive that he went all over the entire mountain? RESPONSE: No. Jesus went to the place he ascended from on Mt Olivet. ************************************************ -Is there a geographical boundary where one is at a location and one is not? RESPONSE: Yes. There is the village limits outside of which it wouldn't be called Bethany. If not in Bethany but on the mountain, it would be called Mt Olivet and not Bethany. That should be obvious. ******************************************************* -The base of mountain is still a part of the mountain isnt it? RESPONSE: Yes. But if there were a village there, the location would be referred to by the name of the village. For example, if I were going to Albany, I would say Albany. If I was going to the Adirondacks mountians only but not Albany, I would say Adirondacks and not Albany. ********************************************************* -A person who has just parked their car at a Red Sox game, and is walking to the door gets a phone call and tells the person "I'm at Fenway". Is this statement wrong simply because hes not in his seat? RESPONSE: He could say "I'm at Fenway," but that statement would be inaccurate if he were really in the Red Sox dugout. Plesae keep in mind that scripture is suppose to be inspired and cannot coexist with error. *********************************************** ALSO: If it was reported that I ascended today when it really was 40 days from now, that would be an inaccurate statement (and doubtfully "inspired") : [right][snapback]661108[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Please take it to the thread it was on. Not to mention, the above seems to be your personal speculation instead of evidence... Show some evidence written before 1000 AD to back your stance or you just prove the Catholic Church is correct by trying to argue against it without writings from the first Christians showing the meaning of the bible. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirklawd Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 I quote Les's last post, and responded to it on the appropriate thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 27 2005, 12:56 PM']Please take it to the thread it was on. Not to mention, the above seems to be your personal speculation instead of evidence... Show some evidence written before 1000 AD to back your stance or you just prove the Catholic Church is correct by trying to argue against it without writings from the first Christians showing the meaning of the bible. God Bless, ironmonk [right][snapback]661122[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: I really can't figure out what you are demanding "some evidence before 1000AD" for. Both Luke's gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written prior to 100 A.D. and both are avaible on the Web or in your Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 [quote]RESPONSE: He could say "I'm at Fenway," but that statement would be inaccurate if he were really in the Red Sox dugout. Plesae keep in mind that scripture is suppose to be inspired and cannot coexist with error.[/quote] He's not a Fenway if he is in the dugout? This is an error? No wait. Your not playing with a full deck my friend. Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 [quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 27 2005, 01:54 PM']He's not a Fenway if he is in the dugout? This is an error? No wait. Your not playing with a full deck my friend. Blessings [right][snapback]661296[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: It he were in the Red Sox dugout, merely saying that he was at Fenway is rather nonspecific and hence not entirely accurate. Somewhat similar to a wife calling her husband on his cellphone and asking where he is. If he's at his mistress's house, but only replies 'I'm in the city" that isn't entirely accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnanc Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 this is really confusing. I think if I was at home and a friend called me on my cell phone and asked where I was, saying in my room would be just as accurate as, at home. I think it would have to depend on the person asking where someone is. In the example with the husband you gave, that would seem to be a lie to not be more specific, but in the bible where the location itself might not be as important, both are accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirklawd Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 whats more confusing is that people just seem to wake up and decide that they want to attack the church. im not just talking about littleles here, but ive seen alot of protestant churches have anti-catholich "training" part of their weekly exercises. why? you will never see a catholic "trained" in such a manner to attack protestants. the only thing we have is apologetics, and it is the defense of the faith against such attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 (edited) [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 12:42 PM']RESPONSE: I evidenced above that Dude made that statement. [right][snapback]661037[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Not true. My entire post (emphasis added): [quote][color=red]I answered you[/color]; the four Gospels were tradition handed on to later generations of the Church. You ignored it, like everything else I say. I'm sorry, but I will not continue to dialogue with you. It's like talking to a wall and it's quite annoying. Sorry, God bless.[/quote] I said "I answered you" because I provided evidence in an [i]earlier post [/i] (not to mention numerous other posts) that the four gospels were handed down to suceeding generations in the Church: [quote]They weren't discovered in 300 A.D. There were people who knew the writers of these four Gospels and wrote about them doing so. The four canonical Gospels are quoted so much in the writings of the fathers that they can almost be totally reconstructed. It is obvious that they were held to be canonical. The trivial nature of this question makes me think there is nothing more that I can say. I am done with this thread. God bless.[/quote] Edited July 27, 2005 by thedude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 02:10 PM']RESPONSE: It he were in the Red Sox dugout, merely saying that he was at Fenway is rather nonspecific and hence not entirely accurate. Somewhat similar to a wife calling her husband on his cellphone and asking where he is. If he's at his mistress's house, but only replies 'I'm in the city" that isn't entirely accurate. [right][snapback]661321[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well first of all the level of accuracy required varies. But that does not mean that something isn't accurate because it is not detailed. If someone asks me where I am from the answer depends on the context of the question. If I am in Australia, I might say the United States and he would be just fine with the detail given. It would not be inaccurate. If I am in Utah and say minnesota the accuracy would likely be fine, since if I said Hallock he wouldn't have a clue. . If I am in Minnesota I usually say Hallock but since it is such a small town most people don't have a clue either and so I have to qualify where it is. Now I suppose to suit you I would have to say from a hospital bed in hallock. Or maybe from my mommy's tummy in a hospital on the south end of hallock. Your arguement is nonsense. Fenway may well be all that is required and the level of accuracy may be just fine. Unless the person you are talking to is in fenway. You implied above that it was in error. "Plesae keep in mind that scripture is suppose to be inspired and cannot coexist with error" To say fenway is not an error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 lol wow, how do you people have the patience to argue with this guy? all the rumors are true about littleles threads! : /hijack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 03:48 PM']RESPONSE: I really can't figure out what you are demanding "some evidence before 1000AD" for. Both Luke's gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written prior to 100 A.D. and both are avaible on the Web or in your Bible. [right][snapback]661282[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What did the first Christians write about the Gospels and their meaning? Surely the first Christians will have the SAME interpretation of Scripture as the True Church established by Christ. Most people couldn't read until the last few hundred years. Who taught the Gospel to men until people could read it themselves? Who were the trustworthy men that St. Paul spoke of? Books had to be copied by hand until the last 400 years. Who was copying the Scriptures by hand before the invention of the printing press for about 1600 years? Find the answers to those questions and you will either prove the Catholic Church wrong, or find out that it is right. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 [quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 27 2005, 05:28 PM']whats more confusing is that people just seem to wake up and decide that they want to attack the church. im not just talking about littleles here, but ive seen alot of protestant churches have anti-catholich "training" part of their weekly exercises. why? you will never see a catholic "trained" in such a manner to attack protestants. the only thing we have is apologetics, and it is the defense of the faith against such attacks. [right][snapback]661504[/snapback][/right] [/quote] St Augustine: City of God -Book 18 CHAPTER 51 -- That the Catholic Faith may be confirmed even by the dissensions of the heretics. I've learned something.... anti-Catholics are like the Keystone Cops, they're always tripping over each other to be first in the wagon..... No two of them have the same attacks to make against the Catholic Church. For 99.9% of all attacks against the Catholic Church... There are protestant churches that agree with the Catholic Church on many of the very points it's attacked with.... Now, I do not mean the outright lies like: idol worship, Mary & Saint worship.... Catholic only worship the One True God; The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. (The Blessed Trinity) Some anti-Catholics believe Mary as our spiritual Mother, some don't Some anti-Catholics believe Mary Ever Virgin, some don't Some anti-Catholics believe in the Trinity, some don't Some anti-Catholics believe the Catholic Church was first and Peter was the first Pope, some don't Some anti-Catholics believe using statues, some don't Some anti-Catholics believe the Eurcharist, some don't etc.... But they all attack the Church... why??? Because it was first and it is true. The simple fact that for every anti-Catholic argument against the Church, there is another anti-Catholic that contradicts the first anti-Catholic, and there is an anti-Catholic to believe the Church to have the truth.... Helps the Catholic Church.... So many anit-Catholics make it their life saying that the Catholic Church is wrong, instead of saying they are right, because they want to steal people's money..... You'll never see the Catholic Church attacking any other church, the Catholic Church teaches us to respect everyones beliefs. Anti-Catholicism is a great way to make a living if you don't believe in God, it pays well and there are a lot of dumb Catholics. I've seen at least four different dates that anti-Catholics claim the Church started... hmmm.... wonder why? LOL God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God's Errand Girl Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 [quote name='MilesChristi' date='Jul 27 2005, 01:21 AM']Well said, friend. "There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church" ---Archbishop Fulton Sheen, Servant of God [right][snapback]660556[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Props!! Now that I am understanding the basis and evidence for Catholic teaching more and more each day (I am not Catholic), I am seeing the truth of this statement , specifically in regards to those I know who stand in ignorance of what the Church actually teaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now