Search results

No. I wouldn't expect to see one, either. As to apostles still walking the earth, we can't know how many, if any, were still alive (never mind ambulatory). Nor does it matter. The Didache section on ecclesiastical practices -- probably the last section written -- does not depend on apostolic...

Not true. "This generation" (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη) can also mean "the present generation." And I think it does.

Has Pope Francis? https://www.npr.org/2023/12/18/1220077102/pope-francis-blessings-same-sex-couples

I haven't either. Water baptism is firmly entrenched in Christianity, and has been from the beginning as best I can tell.

I don't think @hies is mistaken. The real issue here is how much we are to discount such statements to and about God the Father as Jesus made during the 30-odd years He walked the planet, in light of Phil. 2:6-8. What was it exactly that the pre-incarnate Son (we can't call him "Jesus" before...

Biden picked Harris in an effort to appeal to women and minorities. And maybe idiots.

Point taken -- but a mild dissent on the date. The Didache, according to most scholars, was written in late First Century or possibly early Second Century. Consensus on the range is 70 - 110 AD. We just don't know how many of the Apostles were still alive at the time it was written.

I question pretty much everything when it comes to interpreting Scripture! But studying how others have interpreted ti through the centuries is certainly an aid.

And what about your post-baptism sins?

Sometimes Paul says his opinion is his own, not received from the Lord. Compare 1 Cor. 7:10 and 1 Cor. 7:12.

What I know is that you said we are to confess our faults to each other. If Jesus is the confessor, why would we confess our faults to anyone else? That's my question of you. If you think sins are not faults, just say so.

Which is it, then? To "one another," or to "Jesus?"

Inspired does not mean free of all factual error. If it did, the entire New Testament would be free of factual errors -- and we know it is not.

What, in your mind, distinguishes "people who disagree with Catholic teaching" from "liars?"

I don't baptize at all. I am not a priest or a minister. But my understanding is that those who use the formulation "in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit" ARE baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ -- precisely because Son = Jesus Christ. Different word from...

Paul asks the Corinthians a rhetorical question in that verse. "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?" Two things to say in response. First, with all due respect, Paul is wrong, nature teaches no such thing. Second, disgrace...

You actually don't get it. I know the name of the son. So do you, and everyone else. It's JESUS. The disciples who were present could have had no doubt about it, if Matt 28:19 is a accurate quote of His words. (And that is a pretty big "if" -- a subject for another day.) Since both...

So you start with an axiom: Jesus could not have been mistaken.

We are plowing over the same ground. The son is not given a name in Matt. 28:19. I'm sure you've read the verse a hundred times. The word "Jesus" is not in it. Why do you keep asking this? (Is it because the definition of "per" escapes you?)

Unknown? Heck no, of course it's known! Even though Matt. 28:19 is silent on it. And that's the problem you are having with your use of "per" here. The son's name is not known to be Jesus through that verse.