Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
“Words mean something.”
They can convey error as well as truth.
What can you expect from a fang and claw guy?
LOL!
Irony is ironic
Yours (most often) convey error, as do the words of annalex more often than not.
It really is that simple.
“What can you expect from a fang and claw guy?”
I didn’t say I expected anything more; I just felt like commenting.
“It really is that simple.”
What you think to be error is not. That may be simple, but jarring people’s minds open is quite difficult.
Well you can’t say we aren’t trying!
PROVE IT or SHUT UP.
No, really.
Get to the point, if there is one other than your own having been "offended" while you dish out insinuation and innuendo = INSULTS aimed at others, yourself!
And you have the nerve to talk about "loopholes"? Get real mr. Most of us here see right through the act!
As to the issues of the OP of this thread, you just go ahead and show me where I have been wrong.
But since that cannot be done, then what else is there for 'Catholics' to do but whine and complain and DISTRACT from the issues which were otherwise being discussed?
That's what's really going on here.
I think the following from Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 4, explains it very well:
“And where am I wrong here? PROVE IT or SHUT UP.”
You don’t impose any requirements on me. I shall continue to contradict you where I think it appropriate and true to do so, and you...will act like you do.
“Get to the point”
I got to the point in the early 2000s, and several times since. Sorry you missed it.
“if there is one other than your own having been “offended” while you dish out insinuation and innuendo = INSULTS aimed at others, yourself!”
Oh, so now even innuendo is to be the exclusive province of the fang and claw protestants?
“And you have the nerve to talk about “loopholes”?
Yes, I have the nerve to tell the truth, even in the face of the fang and claw protestants.
“Get real mr. Most of us here see right through the act!”
Most of us? Oh, I don’t doubt that there is a clique that is in agreement with you, but don’t delude yourself that you comprise “most of” anything, except most of the cause of the shameful flamage that is so rampant here.
“As to the issues of the OP of this thread, you just go ahead and show me where I have been wrong.”
As I said, you don’t lay requirements on me.
“But since that cannot be done”
Except by anyone over the age of ten who has an IQ greater than 60.
“then what else is there for ‘Catholics’ to do but whine and complain and DISTRACT from the issues which were otherwise being discussed?”
The fang and claw protestants do not discuss issues. They post the same errors again and again, become abusive when their errors are contradicted, and wrap it up by accusing Catholics of starting the whole thing.
The half-digested cherry on top of that sewage sundae is their ranting about “thin skins,” when they are so much less tolerant of other views than FR Catholics.
Oh, yes, sometimes people complain about their bad behavior, as is only natural, but to say that Catholics *only* complain is hyperbole at best. At worst...to describe it truthfully is a violation of forum rules.
“That’s what’s really going on here.”
I’ve told you what is going on here. Just correct your own bad behavior, and let the entire fang and claw squad do the same, and all will be sweetness and light.
Empty assertions prove nothing.
Like I said, just shut up.
You have nothing to complain about.
Then that must not be me, for I have covered the issue, to a large extent.
Your accusations and slanders are FALSE. Keep those to yourself.
If there was something in regards to the issue of this thread you have established, other then merely assert -- then show me.
And I'll be willing to show you how that likely didn't work, at the risk of needing repeat myself for the umpteenth time.
I guess I could link to previous comments of both myself and others...but just wow -- having to go through it all again -- after everything that Catholics could throw at it has been shown to be lacking if not entirely falsified?
This does get tedious.
Otherwise -- this comes across to me as just trolling on your part.
So put up or shut up like I said.
At this point of the thread, and given the bulk of your comments and participation on this thread -- for me to say that 'Catholics' (in this instance that would be you) have nothing but continued complaints which have nothing at all to do with the issues themselves is accurate enough. You are proving it with each additional comment. So get off of it.
You intended to write canonicity I take it..?
Limited to the Temple Jerusalem in the OT case, as you say.
That is the very point of the matter.
What came to be called deuterocanon does not later become "inspired" text 1500 years later ---when according the Jews themselves the particular written works here under dispute were not recognized at "the Temple Jerusalem".
Josephus in AD 70 did not include any of the books here under dispute as being included in what was then regarded as Holy Writ -- according to the Jews.
Melito confirmed the same thing near the year AD 180 or so.
At many junctures along the way in this 1500 year period, those of the Church knew the written works here under dispute were not regarded as included by the Jews, at the time of Christ and afterwards -- as part of the corpus of writings entrusted to them as the oracles of God, even as those same books we are continuing to dispute canonicity of were widely and long regarded as 'ecclesiastical' writings --- not fully "inspired" thus not Holy Writ -- but still useful.
As Jerome warned --- those writings not to be basis for doctrine. (CAN'T YOU READ?!?) How many times must we go over this??? Must links to the same information be given in every posted comment, on each thread where this has been gone over hundreds of times? Can you not remember what it is that has been set before you? Try reading it the next times the links are provided -- before responding! If you were to do so, it could save us all a lot of time.
All evidences point away from Greek scrolls (thus 'Septuagint' -- which precise contents vary widely in regards to these very additional disputed books) being read from in the Temple, at the time of Christ.
That means --- , despite the (stupid?) Jews who had wandered back to Egypt, and lived for centuries under Greek rule may or may not have been a bit confused as to what their own holy writ consisted of, the Jews of Jerusalem did not have that same problem, and did not accept the so-called deuterocanon.
Jerome it can be seen in various ways, much concurred with the last, above statement. You talk about "church fathers" but seem to neglect that particular biblical scholar. Why?
There is zero evidence the Jews Christ Himself appeared to, had forgotten their own language and used Greek 'Septuagint' even though many who were in Egypt for the most part HAD forgotten their own language, which condition is what led to the original translation effort of the Torah, or Pentateuch into Greek, which translation was known as Septuagint, that name coming from the number of translators.
That led to the set of questions I posed to you THREE TIMES already -- but which you have continually either dodged/avoided, or possibly not understood.
You answered NOTHING, substituting nothing more than the same initial (and unproven) assertions repeated.
If that is "to your knowledge" than your so-called knowledge is less than worthless.
Review your own comments and those made towards you if you would care to see the questions again -- as those were framed.
“you” isn’t ALWAYS about you.
Ironclad dogmatic teaching will have that effect.
You just cannot make this stuff up!
Prov 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Prov 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
“Ironclad dogmatic teaching will have that effect.”
Yes, I’m so glad the One True Holy and Apostolic Church does not practice that.
“Like I said, just shut up…Keep those to yourself...shut up”
So, uh, you’re now in charge of what may and may not be said on FR?
“Your accusations and slanders are FALSE.”
Capitalizing words does not make them true.
“If there was something in regards to the issue of this thread you have established”
Are you new here? I didn’t establish this issue.
“I guess I could link to previous comments of both myself and others”
Then one would have to ask whether you could do that in such a way as to give an accurate picture. (Because it would be a violation of forum rules to say that you have demonstrated that you could not.)
“after everything that Catholics could throw at it has been shown to be lacking if not entirely falsified?”
Weren’t you just saying something about how simply asserting something doesn’t make it true?
“This does get tedious.”
Well, then, why don’t you stop doing it?
“Otherwise — this comes across to me as just trolling on your part.”
Ah, I see you don’t understand the meaning of “trolling” either.
“for me to say that ‘Catholics’ (in this instance that would be you) have nothing but continued complaints which have nothing at all to do with the issues themselves is accurate enough.”
In no way.
“You are proving it with each additional comment. So get off of it.”
Ah. If I reply to you, that is “trolling,” whereas your attempts to cyberbully me into silence are meritorious.
Right, that’s fair.
“Prov 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Prov 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
I keep those in mind when posting to the fang and claw protestant squad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.