Search results

It's strange that you would quote a verse that most Catholics would gladly wave from their masthead. What point are you trying to make with it?

It's a good way to look at it, from a monotheist point of view. Ancient religions with multiple gods often included a chief god as well -- but not always.

Asking if there is Scriptural evidence for a proposition does not make one a Sola Scripturist. (You've asked that question dozens of times yourself!) It makes one inquisitive and studious. The only way to argue like a Sola Scripturist is to reject any other evidence for a proposition. And...

Well, I'm not Catholic -- but neither am I blind to how the early Church understood the Eucharistic meal as the actual body and blood of Christ. So if I am deluding myself, I'm in good company. Within the first two centuries after Calvary, we find the testimony of Ignatius, Letter to the...

It's Cornell. Go Big Red!

Hi Marymog: I think the consecrated wafer IS the body of Christ. I am just saying that "discerning" that fact from looking at it, or putting it through a chemical lab for that matter, is not easy to do! One must have faith. Discernment from appearances is the problem I am focusing on.

"Discerning the Lord's body" in a communion wafer isn't easy!

Why would you care what an ignoree wonders about?

Pardon the interruption, but why would you TELL someone they made your Ignore List, rater than simply ignoring them?

No offense taken. Your civility shines on this website, far outstripping most who post here. I am gratified by it. The moniker RedFan is just a nod to my alma mater. It's not a political statement (although I am Republican).

Well, reasonable minds can differ here. It's not obvious to me that mentioning his mother's name right next to the names of his ἀδελφοὶ compels the conclusion that they are her biological children. I'd need more context than that.

Semantics. One "True" God begs the question. So let's define. Here's my definition: A "god" is anything that humans worship and serve, whether or not it is sentient or communicative. The Golden Calf was a "god." Mammon is a god. (Ambrose Bierce defines "mammon" as "The god of the...

I'm sure there is a point in here somewhere, but it is escaping me. Meanwhile, what about all the inconsistencies I mentioned? Care to address them?

I have never argued that if it isn't in Scripture it cannot be true. Quite the opposite. Where are you getting these notions from, if not from my actual words?

Well, because I read this: 55 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; ⸀οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ ⸀Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας; 56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν; πόθεν οὖν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα; and I see ἀδελφοὶ and ἀδελφαὶ either as brothers...

Don't be silly. I was talking about the saved sinners, not the unsaved sinners. See my Post #1002.

Fair point. Where we differ is in the choice of the word "justice" as a descriptor of His attributes. It just doesn't fit. In fact, it's a terrible descriptor of someone who doesn't punish the sinners themselves, but rather punishes His innocent Son in their stead. Let's not call a spade a...

Showing she had no other children (something I agree with) does not show she was a virgin. I think you know that, and are just being obtuse. Being typecast as the Ark of the Covenant (interesting analogy, I must say!) doesn't show perpetual virginity either. You are fond of saying but not...

That's how God the Father got appeased? By watching his son die a horrible death on the cross? You're not painting a pretty picture of the Almighty!

The problem is not our inability to quantify the "extent" of God's justice, but the use of the term "justice" itself to describe God's doings. The word just doesn't fit at all. Why use it then?