Search results

Well, we'll just have to disagree. No doubt γενεὰ can refer to evil generations in the right context. But it can also refer to the average the length of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their children, again in the right context. So the task is to figure out which...

All these years, and you are still engaging with him? Wow. Obviously you aren't going to convince him that he's wrong. So what's the point? If it's to use him as a foil to make your points to others on this forum, I'd say your tone is a hindrance rather than an aid to that.

Why are you being so mean, @BOL? Sarcastically calling @Truther "Einstein" -- and suggesting he is a liar -- reveals more about you than about him. Please stop. I agree with you that he is mistaken in his analysis of the interplay between Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:19. But we have all been...

What is the name of the son? Jesus. What is the name of the son per Matt. 28:19? Sorry, Matt. 28:19 doesn't tell us, as it contains no proper names. But since everyone knows the son's name is Jesus, this is immaterial, and use of the Matthean formula is not at odds with Acts 2:38. That's...

I'm the last guy around here to declare that Matt. 28:19 is an accurate quote. But no Catholic -- I'll go further: nobody on the planet -- thinks "the name of son is son." Not per common sense. Not per Matt. 28:19. Not per anything. (Note that τοῦ Υἱοῦ in Matt. 28:19 is genitive, not...

And if you think baptism is ineffective if "the Son" is substituted for "Jesus Christ," you are elevating form over substance, just like the Pharisees. Don't do that.

That's true, "Jesus" is the name of the son -- but the reference in either case is to Jesus. If you are suggesting that the actual verbiage "Jesus Christ" in the baptismal formulation is an absolute essential element of the ritual, like some magical incantation, all I can say is, that type of...

Trust me, EVERYBODY knows -- on earth and in Heaven -- that when a Catholic priest baptizes in the name of "the Son" it is a reference to Jesus Christ.

I used to be a Catholic as well. But I don't see what you see about the RCC "skipping" Acts 2:38. "Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" I was taught to...

I do. The truth cannot be discerned merely by counting up Scripture verses thought to support one side or the other, and then seeing who has the most. Scripture is equivocal on the issue. Reason and tradition need to enter the mix before we make up our minds on what is true.

My "understanding of when the referenced Generation starts" comes from the actual words of Scripture. Jesus said "THIS generation" -- the one he was addressing -- would not pass away before the predicted events occurred. There is nothing in his quoted words to suggest that "THIS generation"...

I agree -- today. But they weren't synonymous in the First Century. There was nothing particularly "Roman" about the church back then.

I'm just substituting 1,000 years for "generation" in these three gospel passages. Isn't that permissible -- if you are right about "generation" meaning 1,000 years?

If "a generation" reference in Scripture is 1,000 years, then Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; and Luke 21:32 have Jesus predicting his return on the clouds of heaven, roughly by the invasion of William the Conqueror in 1066.

Adding "Roman" can't be that much of an insult. Google "A Roman Catholic Community" and you'll find hundreds of Catholic churches in the U.S. which refer to themselves that way.

Paul’s letters present Christ’s death as representative rather than substitutional (precisely what we would expect from a rabbi steeped in the sacrificial tradition of Israel). 2 Cor. 5:14’s “one has died for all, therefore all have died” (as opposed to “therefore all did not need to die”)...

With your addition of "Roman," of course you are correct. But take that word out, and the matter is more complicated.

When considering other paths to forgiveness of sin in the OT, including Exodus 30:11-16 (paying money), Leviticus 5:11-13 (burning flour by the poor), or more generally, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 40:6, Psalm 51:16-17, Isaiah 1:11, and similar verses suggesting that the Lord does not delight in...

If I may . . . that's an easy one. The sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem, presided over by the High Priest, was deemed representational for all Jews. No need for separate, disparate mini-sacrifices throughout the Diaspora.

No. God doesn't "need" anything; He can structure forgiveness of sin (or non-forgiveness, for that matter) any way He chooses, contingent on any thing He chooses (or on nothing at all). So the question really should be, did God CHOOSE to condition forgiveness of sin on animal sacrifices? (My...