Search results

Fair enough answer. I just spent about a half hour researching "rites". I went to wikipedia, EWTN, New Advent and a couple other places. I know... That isn't a lot of time to spend on such a complex topic. Overall my synopsis is that each rite has their own traditions, their own style of...

Claiming that the scripture (Mat 1:25) doesn't really mean what it says due to language and cultural barriers is not an arguement I am going to accept. We had scholars long ago translate the scriptures. I believe they were inspired by God and got it correct. Given that the Bible lists Jesus's...

I have read many writings of Church fathers. I have read some of Ignatius'. I am unaware if he wrote a rebuttal or an endorsement of Hegiseppus. If you have proof that he learned from Polycarp, by all means please present it. I am schooled in the early churh writers but by all means haven't...

The problem I have is that there is a pretty prominent Catholic Church about 4 miles from where I live. I say "prominent" because I live in Marland. The first Catholic U.S. colony and its about 20 miles from Baltimore. The sign in front of that church says, "Roman Catholic Church". Its not a...

I could write alot about this, but I will be as brief as possible. Given that Hegiseppus' work has for the most part has been lost and that there are several questions about the accuracy and validity of his work, it is hard to consider it a serious theory. Eusebius quoted him and everyone...

It is true that sometimes the Bible uses the term "brother" to mean a family member, countrymen or spiritual relation. We know this is true because the Bible also clarifies the relationship somewhere else. Lot and Abraham for example. One berse says they were brothers but also clarifies that...

I said I'd get back in a week to address some questions. I just didn't say which week that would be. Turns out it was the week one month after. In all serious... I had to take a month off. I have my reasons and I ask forgiveness for not upholding my original promise. There are certain...

In those verses Jesus was not defining when a day starts. He doesn't even comment on sunsise. The Jewish day begins at sundown. That was so then at it is now. Matthew 28:1 says that it was the end of the sabbath and began to dawn towards the new day. The end of the sabbath was and is 6PM...

You still have no clue what a primary source is. Eusebias lived until 340 AD. Ok. If he lived to be 80 years old, when would he have been born. Go ahead... Get yoyr calculator. Yes... 260 AD. When did Peter die? 64 AD. Peter died 196 years before Eusabius was born. They did not live at...

Matthew 28:1 KJV In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. It was still the sabbath and it began to dawn towards the first day of the week. This is when the women found the sepulchre empty...

What amazes me Webers is those who claim that three days and three nights is and idiom. Basically what they are saying is that they admit the Bible says that, but they don't believe Jesus meant what they said. In other words, they are callinfg Jesus a liar.

Listen up slick. I am fed up with you.... I have said countless times I believe Peter was in Rome. Not because of 1 Oeter 5:13. That verse NEVER says he was! It implies that he was. That in itself is good enough for me. But I also believe he was in Rome because of several other secondary...

It is a stupid question in that it is easily answered by the Bible. Furthermore you are just using it as a detraction because you can't answer any charges I have put on your plate. Why don't you huddle up with Kelpha and try to figure out how long Peter preached in Rome? inI'd rather believe...

Insult me and then scold me for not asking a stupid question.... And that is a pretty stupid question.

Yea... I did. Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean I didn't. You are at odds with Kelpha and every catholic source i consulted on the Eusebius quote and you refrained from my other points.

That is a false charge and I have demonstrated that. How is it that I agree that Peter was in Rome when the Bible only hints one time he may have been?

BoL wrote: "First of all – Tertullian is CLEAR that both Peter and Paul were in Rome giving (bequeathing) them the Gospel and dying in Rome for it. Not really sure what problem you see there . . " Ummm... That is the same thing I said. It isn't proof that Peter wad Pope. It says he was in...

Uhh... Yea I did. And the fact that you responded to it is proof that I did. How is it that you responded to something I didn't do?

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. That's from wikipedia. I think...

Yes he was. That is the proper context. Even Kelpha agrees that Eusebius meant Peter was in Rome for 25 years. And just to be sure I looked at several catholic sites and they agree too. Not to meantion that you fail to address those who say Peter didn't arrive till after Nero became...