Search results

Explain what YOU think "Infallibility" means as it pertains to the Church or the Pope.

Wrong. I already Scripturally-proved the case for Mary back in post #36. All of your ranting and whining won't change that fact . . .

That's good - because you can't do it. Jesus guaranteed that: Matt. 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If WE are His spiritual "offspring" - then that makes Christ the New Adam. It DOESN'T make us the "New Eve" - anymore than Cain and Abel were "Eve". It would make us the offspring of the New Adam. Ergo, your entire argument circles the drain once more . . .

What's the "Roman Catholic system"?? Please elaborate.

It IS ordered AND precise. That doesn't mean that ALL OT Types and Fulfillments are "identical". How old are you, anyway?

You couldn't "bring down" Christ's Church even if you had ALL of the angels of Hell on your side (Matt. 16:18). You ARE correct about your LAST point, though . . .

It's symbolic. Paul does NOT have a uterus and cannot give birth: Gal 4:19 my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of CHILDBIRTH until Christ is formed in you! You are humiliating yourself . . .

CONTEXT, son. You know nothing about Biblical CONTEXT. As I stated earlier - your reckless and immature posts have done nothing but serve to expose your Scriptural ignorance. It's like a bratty kid in the schoolyard - daring me to know the chip off his shoulder.

WRONG - you have it backwards. The Church isn't made of His Body - His Body is made up from the Church. That's what Paul was saying in Col. 1:18: "And he is the HEAD of the BODY, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." As for 2...

ONLY as it pertains to temptation to sin. Read it again . . . 2 Cor. 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. Stop embarrassing yourself, already . . .

And once again, I remind you of the fact that OT Type and NT Fulfillment are never identical situations. I even gave you several examples back in post #68 to illustrate this fact. Some are closer than others - bot NONE is exact. By the reckless and immature tone of your posts - my guess is...

THANK YOU. This is a PERFECT example of your Scriptural confusion - and the reason why I said that the Bible is NOT the "Wild West". Matt. 19:29 has absolutely NOTHING to do with John's duty as Mary's caretaker, in context. John was to take care of her for the REST of her life (John 19:17). If...

READ my last post #68, where I explained to you about Type and Fulfillment. Then - rethink your question.

NOPE. Just showing you the mindset of the writer of BOTH Books. John was Mary's guardian after Jesus died (John 19:27). It is only fitting that John would have more of an insight into WHO she was in Biblical prophecy. The Bible is not the "Wild West" where everybody gets to make up their own...

Nope - not at ALL. Never made that claim. My point is that YOU expect all NT Fulfillments to be an exact replica of their OT Type. This doesn't happen ANYWHERE in Scripture. At best - it is usually figurative and symbolic fulfillment. Adam and Jesus The Flood and the Waters of Baptism...

And once AGAIN - I never engaged in "name-calling". Your falsehoods don't end with your Scriptural blunders . . .

21 Chapters later - Jesus calls Himself the very SAME thing: Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. THEN, I showed you where the Holy Spirit is ALSO called "God": Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie...

Nope. Those who read the prophets in CONTEXT understand that they are speaking FOR God in these verses. In Rev. 22:13 - Jesus was speaking about HIMSELF. SO - tell me: WHO was lying??

I never "called" you anything. If you can't handle a debate - then MAYBE a debate site is NOT the best place for you to be spending your time . . .