Search results

You're being dishonest - AGAIN. I said that I proved his Primacy over the Apostles AND the Church. YOU said that I gave you NO evidence

No - Peter said it correctly. The problem is with YOUR failure to understand what he meant. "In the name of", "As per" Jesus Christ0 It ain't rocket science, son . . .. . .

Funny – your response had NOTHING to do with an “English lesson”. As usual, it was just another case of heterodox flatulence. Sorry for the big words . . .

I gave you Scriptural evidence for Apostolic Succession (Acts 1:20). YOUR response is that Peter was “mistaken”. In post#1438 – I have you a 14-point litany of Scripture verses and Biblical evidence for Peter’s Primacy over the Apostles and the Church. YOU replied, “What doe this have to do...

Just as a rescued person can jump off of a lifeboat and be lost forever - a born-again person can fall back into a sinful life and be lost. YOU can deny this fact until you're blue in the face - but the Word of God proves you wrong . . . (Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46...

Time for an English Lesson - AND a Bible Lesson . . . The prefix "Re" implies that something is being repeated. Acts 19:1-7 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the...

Hebrews 10:26-27 “If we sin deliberately AFTER receiving KNOWLEDGE of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.” This is a clear warning that falling away from God will result in the loss...

Nope – I’m saying that YOU don’t seem to be able to grasp a simple idiom. Here’s a question for you, sparky: “Stop, in the name of the law!!” What is the “law’s” personal name?? OR, are you intelligent enough too understand that it simply means “as per the law”??? As per Jesus Christ (Acts...

Pagans and cultists like yourself are the only people I've ever known who pervert the nature of God . . .

And as usual, you post an irrelevant verse because you lost the argument. God CAN and DOES make exceptions, as I have amply shown . . .

If you simply stuck to the topic instead of endlessly yammering on with your personal life philosophies – you MIGHT be interesting enough to listen to. But you don’t, so you’re NOT . . .

The Bible disagrees with you . . . (Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet. 2:20-21, 2 Pet. 3:17, 1 John 2:24, 1 John...

That’s a LIE because I’ve given you evidence and you have rejected it.

No - YOU’RE stuck on personal names because you don’t understand the idiom, “In the name of”. It’s that simple . . .

Pay attention, sparky – I said there is no such thing as RE-Baptism – IN SHRIST. They were Baptized with the Baptism of John - THEN they were Baptized in the Baptism of Christ. Learn how to read . . .

Because that was the decision that Peter made. It was HIS office to assign, having primacy over the others. It doesn't. He could have died anywhere. He just happened to be martyred in Rome . . . “ZERO” evidence?? Ahhh – there’s that incredible hypocrisy again . . .

Yet you are demanding explicit Scriptural evidence for the Papacy. Sounds very hypocritical . . .

In your last post, YOU stated that when a person is “saved” – they are saved forever. Yet, a few sentences earlier, you stated the following Catholic belief: “No one receives Salvation until a bodily DEATH occurs.” Soooo, make up your mind.

No - those caveats are TO the one who is converted. “Converted” doesn’t mean you won’t RE-vert . . .

And, as usual, you blather on with mind-numbingly verbose word-salads when you are shown to be wrong . . .