Search results

In Rev. 12:1, the "woman" is pregnant in Heaven. In Rev. 12:3 the "dragon" is in Heaven too. Paul said (Gal. 4:26) our 'mother' "above" is New "Jerusalem", not 'Mary'.

QUESTION: ISN’T “PETER” ALWAYS LISTED FIRST AMONG THE DISCIPLES/APOSTLES, SHOWING THAT HE HAD THE PRIMACY, AND THAT HE ALONE WAS GIVEN THE “KEYS”? No. While Peter is listed first in several instances (Mat. 10:2), he is not so listed first in all cases (Jhn. 1:40-41, 20:4; 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22...

Again, you are simply making an a priori assertion that is not founded in actual historical evidence. The OT ("oracles") was given to the "Jews" (Act. 7:38; Rom. 3:2), and it speaks of Jesus all throughout (Jesus JEHOVAH (Gen.49:18; Exo. 14:13; 2 Chr. 20:17; Jon. 2:9; Psa. 119:174 HOT) or...

Try reading 1 Nephi 13 (chapter) in which Romanism is identified as the "abominable church", church of the devil (Great Whore of Revelation 17 & 18), "Babylon" in Rome, which made "war with the "saints"". Follow your own LDS notations on the official website. I did.

Claiming 'syriac' or 'Aramaic' is moot. There is not a single shred of evidence that the NT (as a whole) was ever written in 'Aramaic', or that Jesus primarily spoke such to the disciples. Are there certain 'Aramaic' words utilized? Sure, but that is no different than myself, or anyone...

A Catholic will call their priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal and 'pope': "Vicarivs Christi" [Latin] As for instance: “Vicar (Latin vicarius, from vice, “instead of”) ...” [Online Catholic Encyclopedia, Vicar] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Vicar “Vicar of Christ (Latin Vicarius Christi). ...

I used to claim that very thing, when I was Roman Catholic (big "C", of course), "born and raised" of course. :)

I will disagree with you here. It is not wrong in it's translation. It is when persons do not understand why the KJ translators did what they did, that they blame 'translators' for 'mistakes'. A supplied word (italic), is just that, a supplied word, meant as an help to guide the reader as to...

Ezekiel was contemporary with Daniel. The scripture does not relate the number 1,150 as a prophetic time anywhere in its plain reading, in any given place, and neither is the word "sacrifice" actually present in Daniel 8:13-14, for it is clearly supplied and not present in the Hebrew text at...

Indeed. [A.] Preterism - Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that it all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of...

Indeed. Antiochus IV Epiphanes did not wax “exceeding great”, by any known historically comparable standards, in any direction [in the south/Egypt, any territory he might have gained was immediately given up to Rome for fear of their entering into Battle against him, in Judaea, there were some...

Indeed. Even the Jews [Judas Maccabees, etal. according to the apocryphal books of [1-4] Maccabees] threw him [his armies] out of Jerusalem, in the Maccabean revolt. And nowhere could it be said that he waxed exceeding great in the east [Media-Persian, area], dying there in great heaviness...

Indeed. Looking at Antiochus IV Epiphanes [Epimanes, the mad one], and the failure of this person to fulfil the prophecies of Daniel 8's 'little horn': "... He was not deficient in capacity or vigour of mind to make a figure in war; but [31] such perversity and indiscretion prevailed in his...

You mean the Ignatian forgeries (15 letters)? Many scholars, including Philip Schaff have made some very valid points in regards those so called (15) 'Ignatian letters': From: Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians. The...

Do you agree with this "hstory" (sic) and "truth" in regards Matthew 16:18?: A study, done by a Roman Catholic, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick: "... which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other insights.[5] He...

I am what some (not all) classify as 'non-trinitarian' (Roman Catholic def.) because it is unscriptural, and destroys the Gospel. My belief, scripturally, is in the eternal heavenly Trio, see 1 John 5:7-8; Zechariah 3:1-2; Isaiah 48:16; &c. So, to answer your question, which may be geared more...

Elizabeth, Mary's “cousin”, was never called Mary's “sister” in Scripture. The same applies to these “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus, of their father Joseph. Not once in Scripture are they called “cousins” of Jesus. Thus, we can eliminate that option. Scripture gives us clues, when we are...

As I said, read more carefully: Your question was basically as follows: "Is there proof in the Bible that Mary's biological son was Jesus only" An Answer is as follows: Before we begin, please pray, and open your Bible. We can know that Jesus was the ‘firstborn’ of Mary, as per St. Mattew...

Do you have a confusion about "were dead" and "shall ... live"? Mary is presently dead, in first death. She is not yet resurrected to life immortal.

Yes, she shall (future tense) live, in the time of the resurrection to come, but now she sleeps in the dust of the earth in the first death. Read the context of John 11. It's about resurrection. The woman isn't Mary. It's the old testament church. It's a symbol of God's people BEFORE the...