Search results

I stated that earlier, in case you did not read what I wrote (which seems to be the case here, as elsewhere). I also made note that though wikipedia cites historical sources, wikipedia itself is not an historical source, which you were caught using, and passing it off as an "historical source"...

Debunk what? That protestants differed with one another, as the ECF and catholics and 'orthodoxy' and what not do among themselves?

This is one of the reasons I left Catholicism. It is unwilling to admit it's own error. It claims infallibility. You cite a blogsite which includes wikipedia sourced material, and without noting that and pass it off as an "historical sources"?

Again, I wasn't using it as an historical source. I used it as quick reference. Citing an historical source is going to an original document, like Pliny and citing that as an historical source. For instance when I cited Pliny here - King James Bible Forums | KJV Only Forums | KJV Baptist...

Again, look how I used it. Not as an historical source. I used it as a quick reference. An historical source, is going to an actual historical document and citing it, such as citing Josephus in a quotation, as an historical source. So, no, why do you misrepresent me, and attempt to turn the...

Of course people are going to close their ears to error, it is written: Pro_19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge. You have an incorrect, that is to say, non-scriptural identification. You simply provided your own private interpretation...

wow ... I didn't say it ... but I smiled at it ...

The Bible says: Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you. Why? 2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private...

Not true, but ...that's ok.

Hmmmm.

You 'stated': "Religious disputes between the Crypto-Calvinists, Philippists, Sacramentarians, Ubiquitarians and Gnesio-Lutherans raged within Lutheranism during the middle of the 16th century." - Where does the Bible say... Now copy that and look on this page - Lutheranism - Wikipedia Now...

Don't bother, beads and repetition cannot do anything. I know by experience. You might as well 'jump rope', counting the times, while repeating some phrase found in scripture. Mary is deceased anyway and so also most of the 'saints' (except Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Firstfruits & Jesus) - Martin...

Was I using wikipedia as an "historical source"? No. I was using it as informational source (like a dictionary, etc). Difference. You stated that you cited historical sources in regards the Reformation. That 'source' was wikipedia, a non historical source. It would be like citing an...

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Notice: 1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: For Jesus is "Lord" over her. For the church is "for the Lord", His body: 1Co_6:13 Meats for the belly, and...

The twin institutions of Eden. [1] Marriage, [2] Sabbath, as the [1] is already under assault in the government (a counterfeit marriage, homosexuality, LGBTPQRSTUV ...), so too will [2] soon follow a child of the Papacy, a NSL (National Sunday Law, a counterfeit sabbath). It is written ...

Think about this, please: Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. A plague (of health; Psalms 91:3) is coming for which there will be...

Nope. As man and woman (wife), married by God, are as a picture of the Godhead. The Father is the man, the Son is as the woman (submitted) being the glory of the Father and for the Father's pleasure (and the eternal Son is of the Father, as the only begotten of the Father), being the...

Where is Heaven (3rd)?

Yes, and I understood what you said, but disagreed with what you said based upon the text. "We' (earthlings)" are "all lost" before "we become saved", yes, but the '99' have nothing to do with eartlings. The '99' are beings on the other worlds (not earth) that never fell into sin. They...