Hello

@Muhammad Al-Tajir The thing is... you are implying that Sarah was 127 years old when Rebekah was born, which is not the case. If we follow your logic, it would mean that Rebekah’s uncles and father were 3 years old too. Sarah was 127 **when Abraham was informed** of their birth, the birth of Rebekah, her father and her uncles, but it doesn’t mean that Sarah was 127 when they were born.
We do not actually know when they were born.

Also, other passages in the Bible indicate that she was defiantly not a 3 year old.

"16 An exceeding comely maid, and a most beautiful virgin, and not known to man: and she went down to the spring, and filled her pitcher and was coming back.
17 And the servant ran to meet her, and said: Give me a little water to drink of thy pitcher.
18 And she answered: Drink, my lord. And quickly she let down the pitcher upon her arm, and gave him drink.
19 And when he had drunk, she said: I will draw water for thy camels also, till they all drink.
20 And pouring out the pitcher into the troughs, she ran back to the well to draw water: and having drawn she gave to all the camels."
Genesis 24:16-20

3 year old children can barely walk, let alone do these things.

@Muhammad Al-Tajir

Have you read my message?

Sarah was 127 when **Abraham was informed of their birth**

Informed

20 **After these things, it was told Abraham** that Melcha also had borne children to Nachor his brother.
21 Hus the firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Camuel the father of the Syrians,
22 And Cased, and Azau, and Pheldas, and Jedlaph,
23 And Bathuel, of whom was born Rebecca: These eight did Melcha bear to Nachor Abraham's brother.
24 And his concubine, named Roma, bore Tabee, and Gaham, and Tahas, and Maacha.
Genesis 22:20-24

We don't know when they were born

@Muhammad Al-Tajir

Yes

>(((Rabbis)))
The rabbinical commentaries and midrashim contain quite a bit of speculation with minimal support from the Hebrew text, and which are sometimes contradictory, pitting one school's interpretation against another.

@Muhammad Al-Tajir

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3V.HTM

@Muhammad Al-Tajir

This is Canon law on marriage

What do you mean?

@Muhammad Al-Tajir

Well, yeah
"Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and **which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring**, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized."

Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

@Muhammad Al-Tajir

Here ya go!

A man needs to be at least 16 and woman at least 14.

Code of Cannon law is the system of laws and legal principles.
The history of it is pretty long.

It exists since the beginning of the Church.
It was updated through time.
The history of Latin canon law can be divided into four periods: the jus antiquum, the jus novum, the jus novissimum and the Code of Canon Law

The today's Cannon Law was promulgated by Benedict XV in 1917.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

@Deleted User

It's essence

Read the Athanasian Creed

The diffrence between Orthodox and Catholics is that they make a distinction between essence and energies.

Yes, they are one being which means they have the same essence!

That's that I mean

Of course

They are one in essence

Which means God is one devine being

@Deleted User Most theologians say essence because it's more theologically sound.

@TheSilverish
Let me put it simply...
God is ONE God (ONE BEING)  but
three coeternal consubstatial persons
Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.
The three Persons are distinct, **yet are one in substance, essence or nature**

Persons are distinct, but are one in essence

the word essence is synonyms with the word being

Yeah
But when disscussing Theology it's better to say essence.

No

Ffs

They believe that essence and energies are distinct

And they don't believe in filioque

Yes

That's the main difference

Bingo

Yeah, Hesychasm is also very similar to sufism

Based Dimond Brothers

I love them

Epic

As far as I know, it's dogmatic in the Eastern Orthodox church (not oriental orthodox) @Deleted User

@Deleted User
Ok, can you give me some evidence?

@Deleted User Most Orthodox still believe in the Palamite distinction and as far as I know Gregory Palamas is considered a Saint in the Easter Orthodox church...but how can a heretic be a Saint?

>and nor does the Catholic Church
By the very fact that he was orthodox he is considered a heretic.

>The Orthodox Church does not recognise Palamas as a heretic
Ok, but his teachings are not a matter of small disagreements, it's was a big theological issue and Three Orthodox synods ruled in Palamas's favor?

I know that only Ecumenical councils are infallible, but still...

@Deleted User

It begs the question...if his teachings are not considered infallible in the Orthodox church, there is a possibility that he was wrong and therefore a heretic, right? (Btw I am talking from a Orthodox perspective, he is a heretic either way in Catholicism)

Yes, that's pretty obvious...
But what is considered truth in the Orthodox church then? Again, this is a BIG theological issue...

@Deleted User

You think that Palamas is wrong?

@Deleted User

Do you consider him a heretic because well....his view of God is drastically different?

How can a heretic be a Saint?

🤔 That doesn't answer my question...

@Deleted User

So you don't believe that he's a Saint?

@Deleted User You know that a heretic Saint is oxymoronic, right?
And again, this is not a small issue.

I mean, are canonizations considered infallible in the Orthodox church? @Deleted User

Usually?? They are either infallible or not infallible, there is no between lol
Man...this just goes to show how Orthodox theology is dumb.

ahahahahahha Based
Virgin Church with one Head (Pope) and universal doctrine and dogma
VS.
Chad "Church" with differently opinionated patriarchs and non-universal doctrine
@Deleted User

>there are different sects of Catholicism
What do you mean?
To be considered a Catholic, you need to accept Catholic dogma which is universal.
If you mean different liturgical rites, Orthodoxy also has different rites.
But all liturgical rites of the Catholic Church follow the same doctrine and dogma.

Well, I am a Sedevacantist
And yes Novus Ordites are not real Catholics

Example?

If someone denies Catholic dogma, he's not Catholic...plain and simple

😔

First of all, Sede is vacant and it has been that way since Vatican II
Second, not everything pope does or says is infallible.
He is infallible when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

NOT everything

Yes, but Canonizations are considered infallible in Catholicism.

But he is a Saint?

A heretic cannot become a Saint (at least in Catholicism).
Plus, heretic cannot be "holy"...

Epic
Does that mean a Muslim or a member of another religion can be holy?

Palamas version of God is not Christian God, that's the point...
>There are orthodox saints that Catholics recognise
Yes, Saints that lived before the Great schism

Your logic is flawed. Then every major heresy in Christianity was "Christian"...
Palamas distinction is somewhat similar to Nestorianism, which was a major heresy in the Early Church history.

>non Christian
>Saint
Epic

Non Christians cannot be Saints famalam.
I think that you don't know what Saint actually means...
It means a person in heaven.

>In Christianity you are sainted for your work and dedication to god
Okay....
The word is not sainted, but Canonized.
Orthodoxy has the same definition of a Saint like the Catholics.
A Saint is a person in heaven.

The Canonization of Mother Theresa is not infallible, because she was canonized by an Anti-Pope.

@Muhammad Al-Tajir Yes

Yes

Every non-Catholic goes to hell

It's dogma

Outside the Church there is no salvation

No, the canonization in the Catholic church is a complicated process.
It much more complicated to become a Saint in the Catholic church compared to Orthodoxy

To become a Saint in the Catholic church, you have to:
1. hold the Catholic faith.
2.Live an exemplary and pious life.
3. And perform miracles (but this is somewhat optional)

Yes

Yes