Search results

If you believe that, then why are you bothering to engage F2F on this?

I hesitate to conclude that "the doctrine of the Mass doesn't yet exist in Justin's time" simply because "sacrifice" and "priest" aren't mentioned in Justin Martyr's First Apology. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "the doctrine of the Mass." Liturgy evolves, but I think the...

He will continue to January 20.

Biden just announced he is dropping out.

Your opinion is one thing, but telling me I am "in a fairy tale dream" for thinking Biden might step down if the pressure gets great enough is a very different thing. Let's see what the week brings.

You are dodging the issue (inseparability of divine and human natures). If the Son of God was always God, inseparably having both divine and human natures including during his 30-odd years walking the planet, then the Son of God (= God) was a servant to God and God was a servant to God -- which...

God was a servant of God? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Phil 2:7 would disagree. Whatever He "emptied himself" of had to be within His divine nature. Ergo, they were at least partially separable while He walked the earth.

You sure of that?

Oh, I'm not questioning that Calvary was foreknown and planned. I have no doubt of it. That's not my question. WHY WAS IT NECESSARY? Why was Almighty God (who can do anything) unable to forgive mankind's sins in any other way? And if He WAS able, but chose not to, it's time to talk about why...

When you say "had to be," are you suggesting that there was no other way our omnipotent, all-loving Father could have forgiven mankind's sins short of the brutal death of His Son?

Well, I think you may have overstated papal authority and understated episcopal authority a bit. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that papal authority differs from general episcopal authority only insofar as it is invoked to establish union in the face of doctrinal differences among...

It doesn't.

Not at all. But he can install agents as surrogates - and in John 21:15-17 that includes another shepherd (Peter).

I see this as a flat out contradiction. If John is "bearing witness" he is the author of the book, and it is not Christ "who had written and given" the book (as opposed to revealing the content that John wrote down)..

John 21:15-17 has a different take.

Then how do you interpret all of the the first-person passages? Is every "I" and "Me" a reference to Jesus, or to John?

When my Dad called me "son," it was clear to everyone who heard him that he was referring uniquely to me. When a priest or minister baptizes in the name of "the Son," it is clear to everyone who hears him that he is referring uniquely to Jesus Christ.

What???? In the name of JUST "Jesus"??? Not "Jesus CHRIST"??? That would be a total waste, according to you! Gotta mouth the words "Jesus Christ," according to you. No substitutes allowed, according to you. Can't mouth the words "the Son," nor any other reference to Him, according to you...

Not me. I think Jesus' name is assumed when "the Son" is SPOKEN. After all, who else can "the Son" refer to?