Search results

What speculation of mine are you referring to?

Lots of thoughts. But they are scientific rather than theological -- with one exception. You ask "Does this apply to revelation." I answer "No."

I've posted well over a thousand times on this site, and many of those quote the NT. Yes, there is a reason I'll also quote from literature. It's to illustrate a point. Here's one I find particularly apt to your post #18: "His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff...

This seems a strained interpretation of a facially clear Bible verse. One can dig too deep. And not find any gold before hitting bedrock. "'When you come tomorrow, bring my football boots. Also, if humanly possible, Irish water-spaniel. Urgent. Regards. Tuppy.' "What do you make of that...

That's a possibility.

I agree that this is what "the Magisterium" teaches, but I don't agree with all of the teaching. I align myself with those who view Paul's writings on the subject to be a refection of his times.

With all due respect, I think the authority to ordain women priests does reside with the Church. John Paul II just decided that it should not be exercised, and he cast it as though the Church was forbidden to allow it. That's fine for Catholics who must abide by such Papal pronouncements...

To be clear, my issue is not over who decides the wedding date. My issue is over who knows about that date in advance. @Jericho says "nobody but the groom's father" -- and that's why he analogizes it to Matt. 24:36. He thinks the groom's father customarily kept the chosen date secret from his...

You've got it backwards. Gates are defensive barricades, not offensive weapons. Saying "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against the Church means they will not withstand the Church's attack. This has nothing to do with the Anti-Christ overcoming the Church. (No doubt the Anti-Christ will...

Absolutely not what I asked for! I wanted historical evidence for this: @Jericho is supporting his thesis by drawing an analogy between Matt. 24:36 and what he claims was a marriage custom of that era. I want to see the evidence for such a custom. I want to see even a single historical...

In Bush v. Gore the highest court of the State of Florida had already spoken when SCOTUS took up the case! Aren't you paying attention? I will say it for the last time: No state court decision is reviewable by SCOTUS until all state court appeals have been exhausted.

That's a harder one, because I'm convinced -- as most scholars are -- that 2 Peter is pseudographical. 2 Peter and Pseudepigraphy - Reading Acts But since "Scripture" simply means the sacred writings of a given religion, and the Christian NT canon came to include 2 Peter, I have to say that it...

I guess that's interesting. Meanwhile, to my point: In Matt. 28:19 Christ reportedly commissions his apostles to spread the gospel to “all the nations.” The Greek word ethnē translated as “nations” here is universally interpreted to include Gentiles―making it a complete reversal of Christ’s...

Just sayin' that pseudographical works didn't exist back then? Or something else? https://readingacts.com/2018/03/18/2-peter-and-pseudepigraphy-2/

I accept that what Paul wrote is scripture. And I do so without the "light" of 2 Peter.

You aren't answering me. You have set forth a dozen or more alleged marriage customs of that era, and associated a rapture-related Scripture passage with each of them. Fine. And I challenged only ONE of those alleged customs. I think there is zero historical evidence for it, and I am asking...

Well, the author of 2 Peter does. I am far from concluding that Simon Peter himself was that author. But my point stands. Paul was referring to the OT when he wrote to Timothy.

Sure, for a second time. I'm not denying that the Acts 10 vision was Christ's own words too. But why the need for a refresher? Did Peter just forget what Christ had already told him at His ascension? (I should have said "Christ's earlier words" rather than "Christ's own words.")

What are you talking about? I'm not pushing ANYTHING. And I agree that Peter learned nothing from Paul about outreach to Gentiles. I'm just saying that the Great Commission recorded by Matthew instructed the apostles, Peter included, to reach out to the Gentiles. So Peter's coming to that...

And not from Jesus's parting earthly words (Matt. 28:19-20)? What, was he deaf?