Search results

It is to laugh. What came first? Scripture, or the Church?

Not to the apocryphlop, it doesn't. All good. YOU Bible: More papist English

Look who flunked kindergarten English.

So in papistry, icons, numbers, and footnotes are inspired Scripture written by (in this case) Matthew. Keep those guffaws coming.

Explain how Jesus' references in Matthew 12:42 to the queen of the south and to Solomon, were not cross-references to 1 Kings 10. What kind of references were they? They certainly weren't papist references. You're a confirmed loser.

This is beyond stupid, and demonstrates the risibly absurd manner in which cults attempt to contort and mutilate language to perpetuate their errors and fabrications. The answer is precisely the opposite. The subject is fruit in both Scripture and aploprypha, and the context (notice that...

Then why is there no cross-reference to the apoxrypha in Matthew 12:42? You got your three strikes previously. You're out.

Strike 3. More of that incomparable RC eisegesis. Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: What women received their dead raised to life again in 2 Maccabees 7:1-42? Give...

That's found in 1 Kings 10. Nothing whatever to do with your apocryphlub. Strike 2. Got any more winners? Keep those guffaws coming.

Thanks for the guffaw. Sirach 27:6 NCB The fruit of a tree reveals the care with which it was cultivated; in the same way, a man’s speech reveals his mindset. The reference to fruit in Sirach 27:6 applies to speech and mindset. Matthew 7:16,20 KJV 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do...

Provide one example of Jesus quoting from the apocrypha.

Let me re-phrase: There is nothing in the Protestant canon which precludes or prevents any individual from receiving the Gospel message, and coming to salvation in Christ by grace through faith. There is a numberless multitude of the saints of God who confirm that reality.

Read the united testimonies of the historic defenders of the true faith to discover the faith, vision, and sacrifice which God vested in them to sustain and perpetuate His Truth; instead of presenting your cultic private interpretations as ersatz substitutes for the historic legacies of the...

What is or is not in the Protestant canon which precludes or prevents any individual from receiving the Gospel message, and coming to salvation in Christ by grace through faith?

Of course they were not the One Ultimate Atonement. That goes without saying. But they were nonetheless recurring actual atonements, until the One Ultimate Atonement. Exodus 29:36 and numerous other OT Scriptures make this plain.

It's anything but irrelevant when one of your putative "canonized" "doctors of the church" deifies someone, not as just any god, but as no less than the Lord God Himself. It is the consummate blasphemy. Did the popes reject Bellarmine's deification of them? Provide a name, date, and verbatim...

Still awaiting the rationalization for Bellarmine's deification of the pope. Thank God for the Reformation.

So true, bro. But someone claiming to be the sole source of truth, to the exclusion of all orthodox Christianity, is completely devoid of the spiritual discernment necessary to understand and embrace Scriptural truth. He represents the epitome of "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20)

I concur, bro. But I think Orthodox Premil is a rare species today. They've almost all been "dispensatanized", as you would say.

You're obviously off in your own oblivious hallucinatory cultic universe. Thanks for the confirmation.