Search results

How was it rigged? I know how one might rig a horse race. I haven't a clue how one would have rigged this trial. Please educate me. Tell me how one might be able to pull off such a rigging -- and then share the evidence you have that it actually happened here.

I think I will need to bow out from further discussion with you on the point, my friend, because we seem to be chasing two different rabbits down the same hole. Your goal is to show Roman primacy in the early church. Accurate or not, it isn't my goal. I limited myself to whether the Letter to...

I think the comma after "presidency" is misleading, and a poor translation. The concept Iggy was expressing with ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥωμαίων is that the church at Rome was presiding in the Italian peninsula, not worldwide. A better translation would be "which also presides in...

Absolutely true! But Ignatius used καθολικός in reference to the consensus, universal, Christian church throughout the Mediterranean world. It was not particularly Roman then, nor did he think of it that way. What we call Roman Catholic today certainly traces its roots there, but so do the...

Well, I've seen this before, word for word. (CREEDS) And it mischaracterizes Origen's teaching on the subject. If you want to know that teaching, go directly to his writing on the subject in CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on John, Book II (Origen) Read it carefully. There is no question that...

Well, we could marshal arguments and experts on both sides of this debate until the cows come home. And leave again. Disgusted. But as I said in Post # 1,076, I'll say again: Let’s stop the haggling over John 1:1, and just all concede that the Greek is inconclusive, i.e., it might be...

Are we marshaling scholars on both sides of this question now? Cool! Can I play? John 1:1 and the New World Translation - Christian Research Institute

I'm having trouble understanding how you could gauge this accurately. A's enjoyment and B's enjoyment are not easy things to measure or compare.

Bingo! The Holy Spirit can convince us of the truth of Scripture. Scripture itself cannot. Big difference. (Proof has to come from an outside source; the written word is not self-proving.)

Just read the article. I see that Titus Matthewson has one follower. Is that you?

I have to point out some circular reasoning here. (Scripture cannot declare itself to be truth, and then prove it by pointing to its own declaration. That would be lifting itself up by its own bootstraps.) But first, I need to ask: Is Gal. 1:8-9 (which doesn't mention Scripture) your proof...

Fair question. No physical X could ever satisfy these two descriptions simultaneously. Fortunately, John 1:1 is describing a state of affairs "In the beginning," i.e., before anything physical had been created. So we are dealing with a purely spiritual scenario, where "with" doesn't connote...

I could say the same about every translation that renders John 1:1 as "God" without the "a." Which is far and away the majority of them. Kneland hasn't proven it to my satisfaction. (Take a look at my posts 1,100 and 1,102 to see why.) In case he is somehow your go-to guy on matters...

I like your review, and this question is a fair one to ask. But I don't think the answer is resolvable definitively. Better just to ask: "Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are accurate."...

I can't disagree with that!

Let's explore this a bit. I contend that Constantine wanted to unite the Roman Empire by promoting religious tolerance and thereby curtailing as much religious divisiveness as he could, without adopting Christianity (or a paganized form of it) as a State religion. Here is what his Edict of...

I think you meant "I will trust my understanding of what Jesus said and did."

Whenever "I believe the Bible" really means "I believe my interpretation of the Bible," it's not astounding at all to see argumentation for that interpretation and against other interpretations.

Praying to God for the Colossians and praying to Mary for others (or oneself) are just not analogous. The latter interposes an additional step; instead of approaching the one with the power to grant the prayer, it approaches one who is thought to have influence over Him. Anyone who thinks of...

I must be having a senior moment here, because try as I may I cannot distill a "Bible principle" -- on any reasonable definition of that phrase -- from what you've posted. Would you mind just stating in a sentence the "Bible principle" you are espousing as proven by your quotes?