John of Damascus' exegesis of De 4:15 is impossible

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Alfred Persson said:
dcommini said:
Alfred Persson said:
Shanghaiski said:
Alfred Persson said:
But history is clear, icon veneration is a non apostolic practice.
But, the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of which you have no part says that it is. Really, you have no argument. If it were only the veneration of icons that you reject, we might be able to have a conversation. But you have shown here that you reject far more than that, so we really have no common ground to start from.
Its elementary deduction, as human nature does not allow the Orthodox religion be silent about icon veneration, wherever human religion is silent about icons, they aren't like the Orthodox.

The church seen in the pages of the New Testament is silent about icons, therefore it isn't like the Orthodox.

Indeed, the silence about icon veneration in the Bible is an overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence they didn't practice it, given the heat and froth of the Orthodox manifest on this thread.
Human Nature does not change? Oh really? Well, I guess all hope is lost. If human nature does not change then why does the mass murder who repents of his sins and becomes a Christian not go out and start killing again? What of the thief who repents and becomes a Christian who then no longer steals? What about those who have persecuted Christians who then become Christians and never persecute again?

I guess those people are not human? Or perhaps human nature can not change with out outside circumstances.
That didn't change his nature, only his personality.
So we should remove the "St." from "St. Paul"? I Cor. 15:8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
elijahmaria said:
Alfred Persson said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
There is no evidence the early church practiced icon veneration, the absence of any mention of it is inexplicable if they practiced icon veneration like the Orthodox, for the latter can hardly restrain themselves from writing about it----therefore the lack of writing about it indicates they did not practice icon veneration.
Hasty and anachronistic generalization.  You're drawing conclusions about the Early Church from the practice of the Church today without accounting for the differences between the specific circumstances the Early Church faced and the specific circumstances today's Church faces.
and do the homework needed to construct a much more cogent argument, then maybe I'll listen to you.  Right now, you're just babbling incoherently.
Your objection is specious, there is nothing different about human nature, that hasn't changed.
You might want to edit this.
Why, its a cogent argument. Human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down, the testimony of history supports that.
However, you're assuming that ALL divine words would be written down, that human nature would not allow a single divine word to not be written down.  Do you realize how much of an unprovable negative statement this is?  All it takes is one example of the contrary to prove you wrong.

Do the Hindu sacred writings contain EVERYTHING the Hindus believe?  Can ALL the teachings of the Buddha be found complete in the writings of his followers?  Did the native tribes of Alaska even bother to commit any of their spiritual tradition to writing?  I don't know for certain, but it seems you're making an assertion regarding human nature that reflects a very minuscule understanding of history and cultures.
Debate tactic 101, change your opponent's argument to "all" and ridicule it. I never said "all", the point is its impossible the event occur and  NOTHING be written down:

"Why, its a cogent argument. Human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down, the testimony of history supports that.

What testimony of history do you have for this otherwise unsupported assumption that human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down?  Do you realize that this requires solid evidence from history?  Do you also realize that according to the logic of your statements, you need to prove from the historical record that EVERY utterance understood to be of divine origin was written down, that NO utterance of "divine" origin failed to find its way into writing?  Are you up to the task of proving that no exceptions exist?  For that's what you'll need to do.


Its common sense...what prophet do you know keeps his mouth shut and hides in closet, never letting anyone know God spoke to him, never putting the message in writing?

BUT your Debate Stratagem #7 "Change the subject to the analogy" won't fly, because I have something better than an analogy...the Orthodox themselves.

You gents can't restrain yourselves when it comes to loudly proclaiming your love for images...just review this thread...icons galore!

The Orthodox are my proof, if the apostolic church were like the Orthodox church today, the NT would shout about icons from the roof tops!


Instead of Orthodox comments about their beloved icons, not even a hint, not one word, not one allusion, not one implication, not one reference, nothing at all.

The ONLY likely reason for the complete and total lack of icon veneration in the Bible, is they didn't practice it.

 

dcommini

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Anchorage, AK
Website
lifeofanorthodoxsoldier.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
elijahmaria said:
Alfred Persson said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
There is no evidence the early church practiced icon veneration, the absence of any mention of it is inexplicable if they practiced icon veneration like the Orthodox, for the latter can hardly restrain themselves from writing about it----therefore the lack of writing about it indicates they did not practice icon veneration.
Hasty and anachronistic generalization.  You're drawing conclusions about the Early Church from the practice of the Church today without accounting for the differences between the specific circumstances the Early Church faced and the specific circumstances today's Church faces.
and do the homework needed to construct a much more cogent argument, then maybe I'll listen to you.  Right now, you're just babbling incoherently.
Your objection is specious, there is nothing different about human nature, that hasn't changed.
You might want to edit this.
Why, its a cogent argument. Human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down, the testimony of history supports that.
However, you're assuming that ALL divine words would be written down, that human nature would not allow a single divine word to not be written down.  Do you realize how much of an unprovable negative statement this is?  All it takes is one example of the contrary to prove you wrong.

Do the Hindu sacred writings contain EVERYTHING the Hindus believe?  Can ALL the teachings of the Buddha be found complete in the writings of his followers?  Did the native tribes of Alaska even bother to commit any of their spiritual tradition to writing?  I don't know for certain, but it seems you're making an assertion regarding human nature that reflects a very minuscule understanding of history and cultures.
Debate tactic 101, change your opponent's argument to "all" and ridicule it. I never said "all", the point is its impossible the event occur and  NOTHING be written down:

"Why, its a cogent argument. Human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down, the testimony of history supports that.

What testimony of history do you have for this otherwise unsupported assumption that human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down?  Do you realize that this requires solid evidence from history?  Do you also realize that according to the logic of your statements, you need to prove from the historical record that EVERY utterance understood to be of divine origin was written down, that NO utterance of "divine" origin failed to find its way into writing?  Are you up to the task of proving that no exceptions exist?  For that's what you'll need to do.


Its common sense...what prophet do you know keeps his mouth shut and hides in closet, never letting anyone know God spoke to him, never putting the message in writing?

BUT your Stratagem #7 "Change the subject to the analogy" won't fly, because I have something better than an analogy...the Orthodox themselves.

You gents can't restrain yourselves when it comes to loudly proclaiming your love for images...just review this thread...icons galore!

The Orthodox are my proof, if the apostolic church were like the Orthodox church today, the NT would shout about icons from the roof tops!


Instead of Orthodox comments about their beloved icons, not even a hint, not one word, not one allusion, not one implication, not one reference, nothing at all.

The ONLY likely reason for the complete and total lack of icon veneration in the Bible, is they didn't practice it.





Somebody is in denial (^). How much longer can this "THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE PROCLAIMS" "Refutation" "NAH UH (use same, refuted stance)" go on? Really now. We have more than indulged you, but you have done nothing but ignore the evidence put forth to you.

 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
elijahmaria said:
Alfred Persson said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Alfred Persson said:
There is no evidence the early church practiced icon veneration, the absence of any mention of it is inexplicable if they practiced icon veneration like the Orthodox, for the latter can hardly restrain themselves from writing about it----therefore the lack of writing about it indicates they did not practice icon veneration.
Hasty and anachronistic generalization.  You're drawing conclusions about the Early Church from the practice of the Church today without accounting for the differences between the specific circumstances the Early Church faced and the specific circumstances today's Church faces.
and do the homework needed to construct a much more cogent argument, then maybe I'll listen to you.  Right now, you're just babbling incoherently.
Your objection is specious, there is nothing different about human nature, that hasn't changed.
You might want to edit this.
Why, its a cogent argument. Human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down, the testimony of history supports that.
However, you're assuming that ALL divine words would be written down, that human nature would not allow a single divine word to not be written down.  Do you realize how much of an unprovable negative statement this is?  All it takes is one example of the contrary to prove you wrong.

Do the Hindu sacred writings contain EVERYTHING the Hindus believe?  Can ALL the teachings of the Buddha be found complete in the writings of his followers?  Did the native tribes of Alaska even bother to commit any of their spiritual tradition to writing?  I don't know for certain, but it seems you're making an assertion regarding human nature that reflects a very minuscule understanding of history and cultures.
Debate tactic 101, change your opponent's argument to "all" and ridicule it. I never said "all", the point is its impossible the event occur and  NOTHING be written down:

"Why, its a cogent argument. Human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down, the testimony of history supports that.

What testimony of history do you have for this otherwise unsupported assumption that human nature doesn't allow divine words not be written down?  Do you realize that this requires solid evidence from history?  Do you also realize that according to the logic of your statements, you need to prove from the historical record that EVERY utterance understood to be of divine origin was written down, that NO utterance of "divine" origin failed to find its way into writing?  Are you up to the task of proving that no exceptions exist?  For that's what you'll need to do.


Its common sense...what prophet do you know keeps his mouth shut and hides in closet, never letting anyone know God spoke to him, never putting the message in writing?

BUT your Stratagem #7 "Change the subject to the analogy" won't fly, because I have something better than an analogy...the Orthodox themselves.

You gents can't restrain yourselves when it comes to loudly proclaiming your love for images...just review this thread...icons galore!

The Orthodox are my proof, if the apostolic church were like the Orthodox church today, the NT would shout about icons from the roof tops!


Instead of Orthodox comments about their beloved icons, not even a hint, not one word, not one allusion, not one implication, not one reference, nothing at all.

The ONLY likely reason for the complete and total lack of icon veneration in the Bible, is they didn't practice it.




Hairbrained ahistorical mugwump comes to mind here.

The reason that icons are important enough to Orthodoxy today so that they will defend them loudly is because people like you killed, maimed, mutilated people and destroyed property in your zeal to be right about some sort of mocked up prohibition against images of all kinds.

Why they continue to address you is beyond me, because this "discussion" stopped making real sense several pages ago.

M.
 

Thankful

Elder
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
263
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pacific Northwest
Alfred Persson said:
The Orthodox are my proof, if the apostolic church were like the Orthodox church today, the NT would shout about icons from the roof tops
By this same reasoning, if the Bible itself and alone was meant to be the only basis of our faith, would not the New Testament shout about IT from the roof tops? Or at least mention a "book to come" over and over again that is supposed to be the be-all and end-all of matters of faith? Because I'm not seeing the coming existence of the NT being shouted from the roof tops in the pages of the New Testament.
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
Its common sense...what prophet do you know keeps his mouth shut and hides in closet, never letting anyone know God spoke to him, never putting the message in writing?

BUT your Debate Stratagem #7 "Change the subject to the analogy" won't fly, because I have something better than an analogy...the Orthodox themselves.
Eh, don't tell anybody else I told you this, but confidentially "Change the subject to the analogy" is actually Debate Stratagem #9 in our handbook. Debate Stratagem #7 is actually "Let's all go get a beer."
 

dcommini

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Anchorage, AK
Website
lifeofanorthodoxsoldier.blogspot.com
FormerReformer said:
Alfred Persson said:
Its common sense...what prophet do you know keeps his mouth shut and hides in closet, never letting anyone know God spoke to him, never putting the message in writing?

BUT your Debate Stratagem #7 "Change the subject to the analogy" won't fly, because I have something better than an analogy...the Orthodox themselves.
Eh, don't tell anybody else I told you this, but confidentially "Change the subject to the analogy" is actually Debate Stratagem #9 in our handbook. Debate Stratagem #7 is actually "Let's all go get a beer."
Too bad we are fasting, dear brother, I would love to have a beer...
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
ialmisry said:
Youd didn't answer the question.

The Apostles present Christ to us as the icon of the invisible God.  The Muslims say because God is transcendant, invisible, infinite and does not change,  the Apostles therefore committed blasphemy, for Jesus cannot be God.

Birds of a feather.
So you admit your icons are of Christ's flesh only, not the whole Christ, for then you must include His transcendent nature. Nestorian error.

BUT I can't let your equivocation fallacy slide, the deception is subtle indeed.

Christ's Person is an icon of the Person of the Father, not His physical body, for He was the Icon of God BEFORE the incarnation, and as the ICON of God He created all things:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
(Col 1:15-17 NKJ)

So you took what applied to Christ's Person as the Eternal Son, and applied it to His human flesh, to bring Him down to your level, make Him as small as one of His creatures, about the size of a tiny icon...only then are you able to worship Him.

While that is sad indeed;  the subtle equivocation fallacy meant to deceive, is now exposed.

Or do you confess ignorance about the equivocation fallacy in your argument...perhaps you were seduced by that subtle deception yourself?
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
So you took what applied to Christ's Person as the Eternal Son, and applied it to His human flesh, to bring Him down to your level, make Him as small as His creation, about the size of an icon on a wall, only then can you worship Him.
Christ brought Himself down to our level, for which we give glory to God.
 

dcommini

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Anchorage, AK
Website
lifeofanorthodoxsoldier.blogspot.com
 
Alfred Persson said:
ialmisry said:
Youd didn't answer the question.

The Apostles present Christ to us as the icon of the invisible God.  The Muslims say because God is transcendant, invisible, infinite and does not change,  the Apostles therefore committed blasphemy, for Jesus cannot be God.

Birds of a feather.
So you admit your icons are of Christ's flesh only, not the whole Christ, for then you must include His transcendent nature. Nestorian error.

BUT I can't let your equivocation fallacy slide, the deception is subtle indeed.

Christ's Person is an icon of the Person of the Father, not His physical body, for He was the Icon of God BEFORE the incarnation, and as the ICON of God He created all things:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
(Col 1:15-17 NKJ)

So you took what applied to Christ's Person as the Eternal Son, and applied it to His human flesh, to bring Him down to your level, make Him as small as one of His creatures, about the size of a tiny icon on the wall...only then can you worship Him.

While that is sad, the subtle equivocation fallacy you thought would deceive me, failed.
^ make accusations with out base or proof

  state argument with nothing to back up said argument

  quote scripture out of context

  make more baseless accusations

  belittle Orthodox/Puff myself up


I can be a Perssonist now?
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
FormerReformer said:
Alfred Persson said:
God Does Not Give His Majesty to Another. Novatian[/i] (Novatian of Rome 235-258): We acknowledge, therefore, and know that he is God, the Creator of all things. He is our Lord, because of his power; our author, because of his creation. “He spoke, and all things were made. He commanded, and all things came forth.”8 Of him it is written, “You have made all things in wisdom.”9 Moses says of him, “God is in heaven above and on earth below,”10 and according to Isaiah, “He has measured the heavens with a span, the earth with the width of the fist”;11 he “looks upon the earth and makes it tremble.”12 He “holds the orb of the earth and those who live on it as if they were locusts”;13 he “weighed the mountains on scales and the groves on a balance,”14 by the exact precision of the divine plan. He laid out this weight of the earth’s mass with precise equipoise, lest the huge ill-balanced mass should easily fall into ruin, if they were not balanced by providential weights.15 It is he who says through the prophet, “I am God, and there is none beside me.”16 He says by means of the same prophet, “I will not give my majesty to another,”17 so that he might exclude all heathens and heretics with their images, proving that he is God who is not made by the hand of an artificer.18 Nor is he some God whom heretical ingenuity has devised.  

Ferreiro, A. (2003). The Twelve Prophets. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture OT 14. (35). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.  
Novatian was a heretic and an Anti-pope, first of all.  Second, his writings are against those who fell during the persecutions and offered sacrifice to the idols of the Roman gods in order to save their lives, as would once again be seen if his works were taken from their proper context and not just a modern commentary (on the Old Testament at that!).  His heresy was his refusal to forgive those who fell during the persecution instead offering only damnation.

I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than Gnostics (the liberal ecumenicists of Rome) and Roman gods.
"...so that he might exclude all heathens and heretics with their images, proving that he is God who is not made by the hand of an artificer.18 Nor is he some God whom heretical ingenuity has devised.  

A heathen cannot be a heretic, only those who dissent from "officially accepted dogma" can be heretics.

Therefore Novatian condemned BOTH the heathen, and the image venerating heretics of his time.

 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So you admit your icons are of Christ's flesh only, not the whole Christ, for then you must include His transcendent nature. Nestorian error.
Ever looked at an icon of Christ, Alfred? Noticed the halo around His head? Noticed the Greek letters O W N in that halo? What do think those letters mean?  Exodus 3:14, Luke 22:70, John 8:58, John 13:19, for starters.
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Alfred Persson said:
FormerReformer said:
Alfred Persson said:
God Does Not Give His Majesty to Another. Novatian[/i] (Novatian of Rome 235-258): We acknowledge, therefore, and know that he is God, the Creator of all things. He is our Lord, because of his power; our author, because of his creation. “He spoke, and all things were made. He commanded, and all things came forth.”8 Of him it is written, “You have made all things in wisdom.”9 Moses says of him, “God is in heaven above and on earth below,”10 and according to Isaiah, “He has measured the heavens with a span, the earth with the width of the fist”;11 he “looks upon the earth and makes it tremble.”12 He “holds the orb of the earth and those who live on it as if they were locusts”;13 he “weighed the mountains on scales and the groves on a balance,”14 by the exact precision of the divine plan. He laid out this weight of the earth’s mass with precise equipoise, lest the huge ill-balanced mass should easily fall into ruin, if they were not balanced by providential weights.15 It is he who says through the prophet, “I am God, and there is none beside me.”16 He says by means of the same prophet, “I will not give my majesty to another,”17 so that he might exclude all heathens and heretics with their images, proving that he is God who is not made by the hand of an artificer.18 Nor is he some God whom heretical ingenuity has devised.  

Ferreiro, A. (2003). The Twelve Prophets. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture OT 14. (35). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.  
Novatian was a heretic and an Anti-pope, first of all.  Second, his writings are against those who fell during the persecutions and offered sacrifice to the idols of the Roman gods in order to save their lives, as would once again be seen if his works were taken from their proper context and not just a modern commentary (on the Old Testament at that!).  His heresy was his refusal to forgive those who fell during the persecution instead offering only damnation.

I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than Gnostics (the liberal ecumenicists of Rome) and Roman gods.
"...so that he might exclude all heathens and heretics with their images, proving that he is God who is not made by the hand of an artificer.18 Nor is he some God whom heretical ingenuity has devised.  

A heathen cannot be a heretic, only those who dissent from "officially accepted dogma" can be heretics.

Therefore Novatian's condemned BOTH the heathen, and the image venerating heretics of his time.
Last time: Novatian's problem was with Christians who had offered sacrifice to Roman gods in order to get out of persecution.  His definition of "heresy" was forgiving the people who offered sacrifice to Roman gods, idols, images of things invented in the derangement of base men; the Church which forgave them (after a strict penitence, not the Evangelical "I'm sorry I won't do it again") was in the eyes of Novatian the "heretics with their images".  
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
recent convert said:
...as the doctrine of the Trinity developed since there is no singular scriptural passage which actually expresses the Trinity. Early apostolic & subsequently martyred Christians read the Shepard of hermas in some churches since it was considered scripture in many churches (they probably do not count as "Bible loving" according to your distrted preaching in the tradtion of man).
Have you no shame? Catholics claim credit for the Holy Trinity, when most of the bishops were Orthodox, now according to you, the Orthtox invented the doctrine.

Don't you realize that would invalidate it?

Contrary to your propaganda, Scripture teaches Three Persons subsisting in One Name (=Holy Trinity):

19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(Mat 28:19 NKJ)

The evidence for this doctrine is everywhere in scripture, implicit everywhere God, His Word, and His Spirit, are mentioned...starting with the opening chapters of Genesis:

8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
(Gen 3:8-9 KJV)

The voice of God is God...the same God the Eternal Son who appeared to Abraham as one of the Three men in Gen 18, and who rained down fire FROM God in heaven:

24 Then the YHWH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the YHWH out of heaven; (Gen 19:24)


Athanasius was clear about this, he got the doctrine from the apostles in scripture, what they wrote:

"but about the faith they wrote not, `It seemed good,' but, `Thus believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.-Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.  


All Catholics and Orthodox claiming to have invented the Holy Trinity, should be ashamed of themselves. That not only misrepresents the truth, it fuels the cults who will agree with you, and cite your words as proof its a "man made doctrine."

Is there no limit to what you will sacrifice for your beloved icons?
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
dcommini said:
Too bad we are fasting, dear brother, I would love to have a beer...
Old Calendar, Old Calendar. (Of course, today is a Wednesday anyway. Are we allowed alcohol on Wednesdays and Fridays?)
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Alveus Lacuna said:
dcommini said:
Too bad we are fasting, dear brother, I would love to have a beer...
Old Calendar, Old Calendar. (Of course, today is a Wednesday anyway. Are we allowed alcohol on Wednesdays and Fridays?)
Even if we were the beer still needs three more days to fully ferment.  Mmmm fresh beer on a feast day.
 

dcommini

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Anchorage, AK
Website
lifeofanorthodoxsoldier.blogspot.com
FormerReformer said:
Alveus Lacuna said:
dcommini said:
Too bad we are fasting, dear brother, I would love to have a beer...
Old Calendar, Old Calendar. (Of course, today is a Wednesday anyway. Are we allowed alcohol on Wednesdays and Fridays?)
Even if we were the beer still needs three more days to fully ferment.   Mmmm fresh beer on a feast day.
mmmmmm beeeeeeeeer
 

Alfred Persson

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
Alveus Lacuna said:
dcommini said:
Too bad we are fasting, dear brother, I would love to have a beer...
Old Calendar, Old Calendar. (Of course, today is a Wednesday anyway. Are we allowed alcohol on Wednesdays and Fridays?)
Ever hear of Christ, or what He said on the subject?

"so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. (Mat 6:18 NKJ)
 
Top