Search results

What is anti-historical? Easy to say. When in fact it was you, the Roman wordsmith, who tried to twist the quotes to your liking, twist them to Rome's advancement. This wasn't any 'diocese' telling another 'diocese'. It was a local church giving advice to another local church. No...

I would first say this. Every man alive and who has ever lived, has wrestled with this. Understand you are no different than any other man on this earth. The desire to view nude women is very natural, but has been degraded due to the fall of Adam. Lust and desire are now difficult to...

There is nothing to indicate any need for the Corinthian Church to be obedient to Clement. Clement is nowhere mentioned in the Letter. The Church at Rome is who is writing the Letter. 'The Church of God which resides as a stranger at Rome to the Church of god which is a stranger at...

As German women have to gather in protected 'safe zones' at public events due to the blessing of 'refugees'. You just can't get more spiritual than that. How do you like your safe zone? You say, 'from a view that is far more American than Biblical', 'more concerned with the country than...

Welcome That is the safest thing to do. I wouldn't say I am King James only, but I believe the King James is the best translation we have. Most all modern translations are based on the minority texts whereas the King James is based on the majority texts. I would not be opposed to another...

The events of (John 6) are not irrelevant. It is placed at the time of Peters confession. There is no other record in the other Gospels to place it anywhere else. In other words, the question of when exactly an event occurs in a Gospel is determined by comparing the other Gospels...

You and the Roman Church want the 'church at Rome' in this letter to be the 'see' of Rome of today. But it is not. It is simply the church at Rome. I don't mind the river Nile when what I am denying is a false statement. The obedience was pleaded for, as the apostle Paul would have done...

No, because Ignatius is clear as to who he was writing to. The Church at Rome. No, the writers were 'we'. Remember? The Church at Rome was writing to the Church at Corinth. No papal primacy here. And, there was no 'demanding' as you say, for their obedience. There was a pleading for...

God can do whatever He wants with His creation. He always does righteously...what is right. Big deal. (Luke 22:3) tells us when the devil entered Judas. So what? Judas was a devil before that. (John 6:70) You 'disagree' with my position, but, it is not unscriptural. Stranger

You can explain all you want. But your explanation is null and void. We are not talking about the Roman church today. There is no 'See' at this time. There is no 'Pope' at this time. Rome certainly wants to build on this to prove their so called 'authority'. Thus Rome must declare this...

BreadOfLife "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ...." Ignatius is writing to the church. Not to any 'See' or bishop. I didn't say Clement didn't have any authority. He just didn't have...

Jesus didn't lose Judas. Judas was always the son of perdition. He didn't become the son of perdition. He was the son of perdition. When Jesus is talking about those whom the Father has given Him, He is talking about the 11. In (17:11) Jesus gives them to the Father to keep in His own...

Kung is not anti-Catholic, as he stated. He sought reform in the Roman Church and papacy. There was no judgement passed by Clement that the Corinthian Church had to obey. The letter itself isn't even said to be from Clement but from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. A Church...

The house is not against itself as it is the power of God given by Jesus to the twelve. If Judas did cast out demons or heal the sick, it was only through the power of God given the 12. Jesus still is a human. Jesus knew the Scriptures. Which means He knew of Judas. Jesus said one of...

I believe you are referring to (28:6). (1Samuel 28:15,16,20) are clear. Samuel is the one who was raised up and speaking. Exactly, it is only the power of God that raised up Samuel. Yet He did it at the request of the witch of En-dor. So, just like with Judas, if Judas did indeed...

(1 Samuel 28:15) "And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" (1 Samuel 28:16) "Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me,...." (1 Samuel 28:20) "Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth, and was sore afraid, because of the words of Samuel:...."...

The same reason He chose one who is a devil. It was meant to be. It was part of the plan of God. It was already foretold. (Ps. 109:6-8) (Acts 1:20) I think you are walking a precarious line when you say Jesus did not know everything as a man. The only knowledge He would not know would be...

As usual, the Nile comes into play when you have nothing to say. And as usual you refuse to answer my question. (1 Samuel 28:7-25) Who raised Samuel? God or the witch of En-dor? In other words, as I have already said, even if Judas cast out demons it was only because Jesus gave the...

I don't call Hans Kung anything I like. I call him what he is. He is a theologian in the Roman Church. In his book, 'The Catholic Church' he gives his own credentials. They are: "As the author of the Catholic Church: A Short History, I want to say quite openly, right at the beginning...

The 'synoptic Gospels' don't always agree with the order of events either. (John 6:70) occurs at the moment of Peter's confession of faith. It is a separate incident not to be identified with satan's possession of Judas in (Luke 22:3). This is only recorded by John and this is the time in...