Search results

What exactly did you think? No answers to the questions have been posted!

I think 1 Corinthians 11:29 is trumpeted by the RCC as support for this position. And arguably, if you believe that only Roman Catholic views on the Eucharist can avoid that type of condemnation, Paul's comments might be decent support (although Paul may actually have had something quite...

I doubt that Ignatius meant by Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία (his words) what you would call the "Roman Catholic Church," @BreadOfLife.

And I've presented an alternative view to that "absurdity," in #829. But reasonable minds can differ on this, I suppose.

I think there is a third alternative: that Roman Catholics might simply be mistaken, albeit well-intentioned, about the Eucharist being the actual body and blood of Christ, with no intent or purpose to offer any sacrifice to demons. Intent matters here. There are many Protestant Christians...

I suppose it's an inference from "corner" references or "ends" references. Maybe Revelation 7:1? Isaiah 11:12? Deuteronomy 13:7?

The meaning is uncertain. The Textus Receptus has ους δεδωκας μοι ("those which you have given me") with the accusative plural ους aligning with the accusative plural αὐτοὺς ("them") earlier in the verse, a clear reference to the apostles. Wescott & Hort/Nestle has ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι ("which you...

Now that Trump is out of office, the mantle Egotist-in-Chief is up for grabs. You get my vote!

You said earlier that "I don't need the Bible... God tells me what he wants me to say and how he wants me to say it."

This was meant for @True Faith. What do you say Paul meant in declaring that he "emptied himself" (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν)? Of what?

This is getting tedious. Again, God Himself, who in His second person (the Son) came down from heaven, did so to implement the will of God. That was his purpose. To do God's will. A will he participated in -- what you seem to like to call "his own" will, which is fine, I'm happy to use the...

Fine. Will the Textus Receptus do? Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν εαυτον γενομενος υπηκοος μεχρι θανατου θανατου δε σταυρου. I ask again...

Who do you know that translates ἐκένωσεν differently than "emptied"? It means declined, waived, set aside, walked away from, relinquished. Never mind what "they" say (whoever "they" are). What do YOU say Paul meant?

No, clearly you don't -- unless your use of "Jesus" is meant to reference the human personality of the Son during that 33-odd year stretch he walked the earth in the flesh and had "emptied himself" as per Philippians 2:6-8. Now, if you believe Paul was all wet, and the Son emptied himself of...

Sure, before the Son "emptied himself" all three persons of the Triune God wold have the same will. That's what I said in post #479.

No, THE INCARNATE SON didn't lie when he said he did not come down from heaven to do his own will. That was the truth. His purpose was indeed to do the Father's will. And he fulfilled that purpose.

Don't feel picked on. @True Faith is treating me the same way.

I am not removing the Son (you don't mind if I use "Son" rather than "Jesus" here, do you? "Jesus" is the human name given to Him upon becoming incarnate) from being God equally with the Father and Holy Spirit -- except insofar as he "emptied himself" in the manner noted by Paul's letter to the...

I already answered that. For around a third of a century, some two millenia ago, Jesus' had emptied himself of his divinity, such that the statement "For I have come down from heaven not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me" was a true statement. It was true if Jesus had said...

God doesn't lie. I never claimed otherwise. What have I said thus far that would necessarily paint God as a liar?