Search results

I see "he died from lack of access to the fruit which keeps one alive physically forever" and "death is intrinsic to all physical life" as contradictory.

The difference is that ROME was not responsible for the canon. (That was your contention, wasn't it?) The Church in the East -- whose bishops adopted the canon, albeit not at Nicaea (that was your contention too wasn't it?)-- was not under the hegemony of Rome in the fourth century.

Fulfillment? Seriously? What do you see in Christ's commanded triune baptismal formulation that was not already complete and in final form? And before you answer, think abut the ramifications of that answer. If you say Peter could modify or even interpret the Lord's instruction, you are...

If you think that, then you must think Jesus's command of baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19) doesn't contradict Peter 's admonition to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38).

If God ejected him because of his sin, and he died from being ejected, what's the difference?

I don't have to be the brunt of your stridency in order to decry it.

I don't think I have ever misrepresented what the Church teaches. (You'll tell me if I'm wrong about this.)

I can explain why, for myself only. Your tone! Don't be so strident in your attacks on others who disagree with you. All of us can err. (That goes for the leadership of the RCC.)

Do you say that if Adam hadn't sinned, he would have lived physically forever -- and his progeny as well?

But there are LOTS of contradictions in the Bible. Like whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). Like whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or...

If that's true (and I am not agreeing that it is), why is that a disqualifier to canonicity?

Anything's possible.

Nobody hid her body. Its burial site is just unknown to us centuries later. Like James' burial site. Like Stephen's. Like many, many others. Unknown grave site does not mean assumption of remains. The lack of first century mention of Mary's Assumption should be enough to dispel the myth.

It's not plausible to me that the apostles were in attendance at Mary's funeral. They were out in the world spreading the gospel as instructed by Christ, perhaps as far as India in Andrew's case. (Travel from Rome to Jerusalem by Peter, for example, would have taken a couple of weeks with fair...

You are aware, I take it, that the canon was not established at Nicaea? You are aware, I take it, that the Bishop of Rome (Sylvester) did not attend the council of Nicaea personally, and that the emissaries he sent in his stead were not bishops?

Democratic power brokers have to ask themselves two questions: (1) If the second debate with Trump (Sept. 10) is equally disastrous for Biden as the last one was, could he recover before Election Day? (2) Can we take the risk that Biden will do significantly better on September 10 than he did...

Surely God could have make an exception and not allow Mary to die physically. The question is, why should we believe He did so in Mary's case? If the answer is "because of her IC," I dissent. Her IC -- which I DO NOT CHALLENGE, by the way (at least not here) -- is just not a reason to believe...

There was more than one bishop, and more than one church, in Rome simultaneously? That's news to me.

"This" or "that" or "he," "she" or "it" are pronouns in the Strong's section you lifted. Asa demonstrative adjective "this" is always the meaning. hence you cannot find a single adjectival use of the word in Scripture that anyone would dare translate as "that." Not one in over a thousand...

My issue with the Assumption is based on my understanding of the Immaculate Conception and its ramifications for the consequences of "original" sin inherited from Adam and Eve. If Mary was conceived without original sin, and original sin is the reason humans die physically, then of course she...