Search results

Your remarks in RED are nonsense because I am destroying your arguments almost exclusively with Scripture. First of all - we ABSOLUTELY serve he Church because Christ identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5), which is called the FULLNESS of HIM (Eph. 1:22-23). Finally - Sola...

Sooooo, does that meant that you NOT going to respond the historical and Scriptural facts I laid out regarding the 7 Deuterocanonical Books - or that you simply CAN'T respond? Why is is that you deflect the conversation away from what we were talking about in order to ask ME a question - BEFORE...

WHO told you I was "rewriting" the Bible. I simply showed you what the actual Greek text says in Luke 1:28. Did you actually think that the New Testament was written in English and NOT in Koine Greek?? REALLY??

WRONG on every count. Jesus left His Church in charge - NOT each individual (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23). His not the author of the chaos that is tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering sects that can't agree on doctrine. He is the Author of...

WOW. If you didn't know what the Immaculate Conception was - and are trying to ARGUE about it - you're a LOT more ignorant than I thought . . .

Those are pathetically-desperate questions. I'm no Greek expert - but I do my homework. "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New...

And it has ALREADY been shown to you that the open Jewish Canon of Scripture INCLUDED the 7 Deuterocanonical Books that Protestants reject. It ha ALSO been shown that these Books are referenced some 200 times on the pages of the New Testament. Here are some examples: Eph. 6:13-17 - The whole...

Actually - I CAN. "Kecharitomene" is the Greek word that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates, “having been completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” Kecharitomene is not a...

READING the Bible and UNDERSTANDING what it says are 2 separate issues. It seems that you have read it - but you STILL don't get it. Now -please address the points I made in last post #289. If you can't - then you need to accept the possibility that you are wrong . . .

Sooooo, if you take this to its logical conclusion - then Jesus sinned, right? After all - He IS part of "ALL". Of course, tat's nonsense - just as your understanding of this verse is nonsense. Rom. 3:23 is using inclusive language. It would be like the newspaper saying: "EVERYBODY in town...

This is precisely the kind of ignorance that I would expect from e typical "cookie-cutter" anti-Catholic like so many on this forum. The Immaculate Conception doesn't refer to the conception in Mary's womb of Jesus - it refers to HER conception in the womb of her mother. As I have advised many...

Your moronic statement above in RED tells us TWO things: a. You think that Jesus was a liar. b. You actually believe that men and ONLY men guided Christ's Church for 2000 years. WRONG on both counts. First of all - Jesus told His disciples that the Holy Spirit ewould guide His Church to ALL...

Right - You and I were saved AFTER falling into the mud of sin. Mary was saved FROM falling into the mud of sin. ALL was accomplished by Christ.

Spoken like yet another person who is bereft of any historical knowledge. There were MANY individual "Canons" floating around for the first 300 years of the Church's existence which contained MANY Books that did NOT make the final cut. Some of these included the Epistles of Barnabas, The...

Yes, He was. How does that negate her Immaculate Conception?

Ummmmmm, it's called, "highlighting". I "highlighted" the comments that I was addressing - which YOU made. Are you going to offer an intelligent response - or are you simply going to whine about my use of "highlighting" the text? My guess ids that you have NO response, so you chose to deflect...

Nonsense. As to your first false claim above in RED - it is absolutely NOTHING that is "obvious" from Scripture about Jesus having uterine siblings. I'll go even further than that - there is no extrabiblical tradition that speaks of ANY uterine siblings of Jesus. Pretty STRANGE for something...

I tried that - but you KEPT on reporting me to the Mods every time you couldn't answer my questions. I'm willing to debate ANYONE here - as I went to-to-toe with YOU for dozens of posts before you started your little Gestapo--like reporting tactics. However - I'm NOT getting thrown off of this...

That's absolutely FALSE claim for which you have ZERO historical substantiation. Constantine simply made Christianity legal in his Edict of Milan. Nobody was coerced to attend mass. WRONG again. Jesus didn't have siblings. If you believe He DID - ten the onus is on YOU to provide proof of...

Science doesn't doesn't "dictate" anything through the Big Bang Theory. It is simply a way of trying to understand HOW God may have done it. Science is the RESULT creation - not the other way around.