Search results

Oh - se we're quoting Eusebius now are we? Do you ALSO agree with Eusebius about the teachings of the Catholic Church with regard to: - Peter’s Primacy and presence in Rome? (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]), time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by...

No - James simply agreed with Peter. Three guys are sitting around trying to decide what to eat. The 1st guy says, "We should get pizza." The 2nd guy says, "Yup - pizza would really hit the spot." WHO made the judgment?

The Scriptures say A LOT of things YOU don't understand. Why should this be any different?

Yup - more examples of YOUR complete failure to grasp the linguistic evidence I presented in post #1169 & #1278. Now, you're just embarassing yourself . . .

Nope - doesn't "change" anything. It means the SAME thing it has always meant: Baptizing "in the name of" Jesus Christ is Baptizing by the Authority of Jesus Christ as outlined in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). The fact that YOU don't understand doesn't "change" it at all . . .

Ummmm, since you can't seem to follow a simple instruction - I'll RE-post the information from post #1169 for you. You see - this is how educated people communicate - with scholarly liguistic evidence and not simple-minded rants about things you don't understand.. YOUR problem is that you don't...

No - they Baptized bt the AUTHORITY OF Jesus Christ. I suggest YOU also read post #1169 - THEN maybe we cna have an intelligent conversation . . .

So, you didn't actually READ post #1169 - did you? I suggest you read it thoroughly and S*L*O*W*L*Y so you understand. I'm embarrassed for you . . .

Go back to post #1169, Einstein. We've already had this argument on another thread - and you were soundly defeated . . . “In the name of” the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit simply means “By the Authority of” the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. So, Jesus told His...

And I've already schooled you on this at LEAST a dozen times. YOUR problem is that you don't understand Biblical language. "In the name of" simply means, "By the authority of" - and I showed you the following scholarly evidence explaining it . . . According to English Language & Usage Stack...

Ummmmm, including a few dozen Popes. Do your homework . . . Sounds like another ignorant anti-Catholic who read Alexander Hislop's heavily-debunked schlock piece, "The Two Babylons" instead of reading history. And the funniest part is that NONE of this can be substantiated by REAL scholarship...

The issues with the East and West that you mentioned were minor in comparison to the MAIN issue of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, "Roman" Catholic is not the name of the Church. It is simply, The Catholic Church. "Roman" or "Latin" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - and there...

I post #1047 – YOU stated the following: "With the 100 or so denominations to choose from, and with all these declaring most positively that they are the one and only true church of God, this can be quite an unnerving and difficult task to have to decide between!" Then, you quote John 10:14-16...

Yes, Matt. 18:17 is quite challenge for all of those "Invisible" Churchers . . .

Uhhhhh, no - post #1040 is by @FHII and it it has nothing to do with this question. So, I ask you once again: Can you show me where the BIBLE tells us that the "Invisible" Church is the TRUE Church? Because, Matt 5:14 says that Christ's Church is a VISIBLE entity that cannot be "invisible".

Can you point me to the post?

Can either one of you show me where the BIBLE tells us that the "Invisible" Church is the TRUE Church? Because, as @theefaith pointed out - Matt 5:14 says that Christ's Church is a VISIBLE entity that cannot be "invisible": Matt 5:14 "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill...

You are easy to.communicate with, my friend.

I can understand what you're saying IF the person is a new believer and has not had the time to think about all of the ramifications of their vote. However - for a follower of Christ who knows better and votes for the abortionist when there is clearly a pro-ife choice - there is NO excuse. I...

And you and I both know that making an idiotic comment is NOT the same as BEING an idiot. I've made idiotic remarks in my lifetime - but I'm no idiot.