dwashbur says It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

That sort of snide comments are uncalled for. Why do you always attack others when you are shown to be wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

dwashbur says It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

That sort of snide comments are uncalled for. Why do you always attack others when you are shown to be wrong?

---

Please give the complete context. Did he say this to you? (I read back in the thread, but couldn't find this.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Please give the complete context. Did he say this to you? (I read back in the thread, but couldn't find this.)

---

Last line of his post#120

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donn450

Do you ever read the Old Testament or are you one of those who dismiss it as no longer relevant?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

My Masters degree is in Old Testament. You tell me. It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

---

Thanks, donn450, for pinpointing its location for me.

Well, Dave certainly knows what he's talking about. I wouldn't argue Bible history with him! I suspect his "you" is generic. And you certainly weren't snide or on the attack (a soupçon of sarcasm there).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

dwashbur says It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

That sort of snide comments are uncalled for. Why do you always attack others when you are shown to be wrong?

---

Not an attack. Advice. If you had checked out my profile, or my website, or both, you would have known my thoughts about the Old Testament. That's why I put them out there like that, so I don't have to keep repeating myself *click* repeating myself *click* repeating myself *clunk* thanks, I needed that.

And I find it amusing that you are now griping about "snide comments" in light of the following:

Quote:

---

You claim to believe in the whole bible, but yet you claim to NOT believe in the rapture. So which is it? The bible, or the teachings of the RCC as the current pope chooses to interpret it?
You NEVER believed as I do! If you had you would know and follow Christ instead of the pope

---

Quote:

---

Could you please explain to the rest of that are not as enlightened as you claim to be where you get this theory?

---

Quote:

---

Book by WHO? Smart mouth!

---

Quote:

---

I suspect by your comments that you are another RCC convert

---

Pot and kettle, my friend.

And I haven't been shown to be wrong yet.

Dave,

I don't understand some of your last comments.

The complete Bible (St. Joseph ver.) is read to the Church populace at Mass. The Church uses a three year cycle to do this. The cycles are "A", "B" and "C".

The Pope does not render interpretations on the Bible. The Pope is only under the seal of infallibility with respect to matters of Faith and Dogma.

With the RCC it is not a matter of the Bible or the Teachings of the Church. It is a matter of the Bible and the teachings of the RCC.

Where are you getting this information?

If you are going to try to dismiss or trash our Faith, I'm curious as to why? What has the RCC done to you that is so egregious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

Dave,

I don't understand some of your last comments.

The complete Bible (St. Joseph ver.) is read to the Church populace at Mass. The Church uses a three year cycle to do this. The cycles are "A", "B" and "C".

The Pope does not render interpretations on the Bible. The Pope is only under the seal of infallibility with respect to matters of Faith and Dogma.

With the RCC it is not a matter of the Bible or the Teachings of the Church. It is a matter of the Bible and the teachings of the RCC.

Where are you getting this information?

If you are going to try to dismiss or trash our Faith, I'm curious as to why? What has the RCC done to you that is so egregious?

---

Uhhhh, run that by me again? I think you may have me confused with somebody else. I'm one of the folks who's been (more or less) defending the RCC.

Then my sincere apologies.

Just for completeness I 'm appending the RCC's definition for "Ex Cathedra"

Ex Cathedra
Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

Again, I do apologize for picking on you. I must have gotten out of sync with all the cut-outs..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

Ex Cathedra

---

And that has occurred only twice?

The next one will be priests allowed to marry? Would that be an "ex cathedra" statement, or could the Pope merely make some kind of new rule?

P.S. Hmmm. We're wandering away from the OP.

WG -

You have to know that I'll never have anything to do with that decision. And I truly doubt that I will be consulted. Me, I've been married to the same Lady for 45 years and there are two lifeforms that I have no concept of, Single which I have heard about and "Celibate" which I missed the boat on some 45 years ago.

You do know that historically there were married RCC Priests and that currently there are married priests, don't you?

Currently, Priests that convert to RCC, I think Anglican Priests, but I can very well be wrong if they are married stay that way until the ole, "Death do us part."

And no, I do not know of any RCC hit squads going around and making widowers. <That's just a chuckle>.

If your are up to it, I have a RCC joke that a Priest in KY shared with me, that is if you want to read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

You do know that historically there were married RCC Priests and that currently there are married priests, don't you?

---

Yup, Anglican and also converts from Protestant denominations.

My dad, who was doing his vicarage year in Idaho when he met my mom (a member of his pastor-uncle's church), told my mom when he asked her to marry him that God and the Church would always come first, and second would be she and any children they would have. And that's how it was.

Quote:

---

If your are up to it, I have a RCC joke that a Priest in KY shared with me, that is if you want to read it.

---

I'm always ready for a chuckle. Is the Tribulation in it? (just trying to stay on task... )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donf

WG -


If your are up to it, I have a RCC joke that a Priest in KY shared with me, that is if you want to read it.

---

What are you waiting for?

While we are waiting here's one

Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation. "What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? " the one asked.

The second replied, "Well, they were both founded by Spaniards -- St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy -- the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants."

"What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?"

"Met any Albigensians lately?"

Here's one my dad told me:

Two Irish Catholics, Pat and Mike, were sitting by the road outside the local house of ill repute, chatting. They saw the local Protestant minister come walking up the road. Pat said, "Now there's a good man." Mike agreed, "Aye. I don't believe the same things he does, but he's a good man all right." The minister turned and entered the house. Both men were horrified. "Oh, Mike!" Pat exclaimed. "How terrible such a good man should fall like that!" Mike nodded, fighting back a tear.

Soon they saw the local Rabbi coming along. Mike said, "Ah, there's another good man." Pat said, "A good man indeed. Not a Christian, but a good upstanding man in the community." The Rabbi also turned and entered the infamous house. Both men gasped. "Did ye see that?" Pat exclaimed. "Aye," said Mike. "I never would have believed it. The mighty are fallen, 'tis the truth."

A moment later, the local Catholic priest came by. "Ah," said Pat. "Now there's me man! Solid, godly and upright!" Mike nodded. "A true light in our community, a man I'd trust with me very life!" The priest then turned and walked into the House.

Pat grabbed Mike's arm. "Begorrah, Mike! Somebody must be dyin' in there!"

(Note: Yes, I'm Irish. On both sides.)

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2310878]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

The context identifies Nebuchadnezzar specifically as the head, not Babylon as an empire, so even there you're wrong. None of the other parts are actually identified, so you're still assuming the rest. Where exactly does it say the others are Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome? (hint: it doesn't. That's the assumption you're making, and it's amazing that you can't see it.)

My Masters degree is in Old Testament. You tell me. It's always nice to find out what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself.

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

---

I have offered something that is reasonable in the light of Scripture AND history. It is a historical fact that the progression of empires was Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Do you dispute that?

You have offered nothing other than saying that I am wrong.

Why not tell us what YOU believe? How do YOU interpret these prophecies?

Do you have nothing positive for this Texas redneck? Hmmmm?

[QUOTE=galveston;2312242]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I have offered something that is reasonable in the light of Scripture AND history. It is a historical fact that the progression of empires was Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Do you dispute that?

You have offered nothing other than saying that I am wrong.

Why not tell us what YOU believe? How do YOU interpret these prophecies?

Do you have nothing positive for this Texas redneck?? Hmmmm?

---

I'm not saying the vision doesn't represent those four. I'm saying it's not spelled out in the text, and is left to the reader to try and sort it out. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were giving an interpretation that isn't explicitly in the text.

Now, how about this: the stone that destroys the statue and grows to fill the earth is: the church! God's kingdom breaks into human history in the form of Jesus' church which he established by his resurrection when he defeated death and Satan and made membership in his kingdom possible for everyone. If we're going to go by historical sequence, that's the most reasonable explanation for the final portion of the vision.

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2312321]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

I'm not saying the vision doesn't represent those four. I'm saying it's not spelled out in the text, and is left to the reader to try and sort it out. I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were giving an interpretation that isn't explicitly in the text.

Now, how about this: the stone that destroys the statue and grows to fill the earth is: the church! God's kingdom breaks into human history in the form of Jesus' church which he established by his resurrection when he defeated death and Satan and made membership in his kingdom possible for everyone. If we're going to go by historical sequence, that's the most reasonable explanation for the final portion of the vision.

---

Can't fault your interpretation

[QUOTE=paraclete;2312619]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Can't fault your interpretation

---

Why, thank you ;)

Where is everybody?

I’m still irritated about the Catholic jokes. I don’t get it. Who was it that died?

JoeT