Search results

What I said was that the RCC rejected her writings. Do you disagree? (I've read every word of the three links I posted. This is the second time you've used "supposedly" in reference to a post of mine, the first being in reference to my legal career. Are you suggesting I am a liar?) What I...

You keep repeating the same thing. I've already addressed this (see Post #326). The answer is: for the same reason God (Purity) in his incarnate state would touch any human being (Impurity). He became incarnate to habitate with sinful flesh, in order to save it. "God made him who had no sin...

Victorinus suggests that John wrote it after leaving Patmos, in Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, Chap. 10, section 11.

Sorry I can't help much with the Why. Above my pay grade . . .

Correction: it would be a waste of your time to quote from Maria Valtorta. Her writings are not "Scripture." Ditto for Anne Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1833). Ditto for lots of books that purport to recount events pertaining to Christ.

Matthew's account of the physical contact with Mary Magdalene et al, and John's account of Jesus telling Mary Magdalene not to touch him, are just different, and there's no need to try to harmonize them. John simply had a different point he wanted to make. His gospel often differs from the...

Hugely complex topic! Several theories have been advanced to explain what happened on Calvary, all of them using the language of “payment” in describing the sacrifice. The “ransom” theory, see Matt. 20:28/Mark 10:45, suggests that by sinning mankind became Satan’s captives, and Christ gave...

This "tit for tat" dance has to end eventually, and somebody has to be the last to strike. Eventually someone has to suck it up and not retaliate. I am guessing that is going to be Iran. But let's see how many dance steps are left . . .

But not the books that @Soulx3 trumpets as "Scripture." See my Post # 400.

Much obliged.

Actually the LXX doesn't use σεισμοῦ ("earthquake") in verse 4. It says χάος μέγα σφόδρα· ("exceedingly great chaos"). The analogy in verse 5 is to the valley being blocked, ἐμφραχθήσεται φάραγξ ὀρέων μου ("the valley of my mountains will be obstructed") by the joining of the two cleft sides of...

Okay, I’ve looked at the LXX version. And the split of the Mount of Olives is described just as I was thinking, ἥμισυ αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ αὐτοῦ πρὸς θάλασσαν (“half of it towards the east and half of it towards the west”).

What about the split in the Mount of Olives described in verse 4? That hasn't happened yet.

So does the RCC. Is 'The Poem Of the Man-God' Simply a Bad Novel? | EWTN Steer Clear of Maria Valtorta's "The Book of Azariah" https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/09/14/a-monument-to-pseudo-religiosity-a-case-against-the-poem-of-the-man-god/

I grant (once again, see my Post # 346) that the post-resurrection, pre-(first)ascension glorified body of Jesus needed to be untouched by human flesh because He was about to go be in the presence of God the Father. But in the womb, He was NOT about to go be in the presence of God the Father...

I have not. What's it about?

The fact that Paul's letters are found in that wonderful fourth-century compilation we now know as the Bible makes these letters "biblical" by definition -- but I thought you were making a different point.

You could be right only if "dwelling within" and "dwelling among" were to connote different meanings of "dwelling." There is no indication that Psalm 5:4 and John 1:14 use "dwell" in such disparate senses, so this different connotation is yours, not Scripture's. And like Scripture, I am...

Is there a way to verify this claim without reference to any of Paul's writings themselves?

I don't accuse "forever" virgins (or whatever you call a woman who takes a vow of perpetual virginity) of being sinners for rejecting a command to submit to their husbands -- as long as they never take husbands! And I don't accuse barren wives of being sinners for rejecting a command to...