Search results

You need to stop using wikipedia as your main source of Church History. Go to the original documents FROM the Church. In the text of the ORIGINAL Nicene Creed adopted at the Council of Nicaea, it STILL describes the TRINITY - the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Of the...

This verse has ZERO to do with your denial of Christ's Church. It simply means that ONLY because of Jesus's perfect sacriice can peace be made between us and God. We are ALL comanded to intercede for one another (James 5:16). It DOESN'T negate the necessity of His Church - which is CHRIST...

And yet, NONE of this changes the historical fact that YOUR ecclesial lineage only goes back 500 years, at best . . .

And yet, I destroyed this idiocy back in post #55, when I quoted from the Nicene Creed, which states that the Son is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, CONSUBSTANTIAL with the Father". It also declares that the Holy Spirit, "proceeds from the Father AND the Son - and WITH...

As usual - you're DEAD WRONG - and it's my pleasure to educate you publicly . . FIRST of all, son - the Counci of Nicaea DID address the Trinity. In order to address the Arian Heresy, which denied the divinhity of Jesus Christ. From this council came the Nicene Creed, which chronicles the...

That's because YOU can't go back any further than 500 years - when mere MEN created your sects . . .

Apparently, you're neither a student of History or the Christian faith. Allow me to educate you . . . First of all - it didn't take 600 years to define the Trinity. The Trinity was first formally defined at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The REASON for this was NOT because it was a "new"...

That's nonsense. It wasn't dogmatically defined until later - but ABSOLUTELY taught in Scripture (Gen. 1:26, Matt. 28:19, John 15:26, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, 1 John 5:7, Eph. 4:6, Psalm 68:5, Mal. 2:10, Isa. 63:16, 2 Cor. 1:3-4, John 3:16, John 8:41, 1 Thess. 3:13, Isa. 7:14, Isa. 9:6...

I didn't attack your character. It has been my contention o this forum for YEARS that ALL anti-Catholics are dishonest because you have to resort to either lying about what the Church teaches and pracrices - or you perpetuate myths and falsehoods. When I compared the dishonesty of the History...

Oh, and NONE of the manure YOU and your fellow anti-Cathoolics have been heaping is ad hominem or smokescreen. Hypocrisy, anyone?

What YOU foolishly refer to as "Back peddling" (pedaling) is nothing but logic. Regardless of whther you agree with Hippolytus about when the earth was created - he mentions that Christmas was being celebrated on DECEMBER 25th before 204 AD. As I stated before - this is SEVENTY YEARS BEFORE...

The History Channel havs very little truth - so it's not surprising YOU would use it as a source . . .

No - just educated.

This is nonsense. MOST of the Early Church Fathers wrote in Greek. Origen and Tertullian's writings are held in HIGH regard- even though both eventually went into heresy. Of course - YOU still think that the History Channel is legitimate . . .

History.com - and it's television channel, "The History Channel" are revisionists. Among other things in their documentaries, they have claimed: - Jesus was probably married to Mary Magdelen - Mary Magdelen was a full-fledged Apostle - Jesus wasn't raised in Nazareth - even though the Bible...

ALL of this was debunked back in post #21 already. I quoted from Hippolytus's Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204). This account was written 132 years BEFORE the date YOU gave of "336 AD". OUCH . . .

Do you have trouble reading or something? WHO said that I was "adding" or "counting" anything?? I told you flat-out that it was Hippolytus of Rome's account - NOT mine. And whether or not you buy into his reckoning of when the Creation happened - he STILL chronicles the celebration of...

Actually - this is nonsense. The Christian historian, Hippolytus of Rome, explains in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204) that from the earliest of times, the birth of Jesus was believed to have taken place on December 25th: “For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when...

In other words - you've put your foot in your mouth. I haven't made ANY statements about the Protestant Revolt that are "fallacious". You won't list any because there aren't any . . .

You said a mouthful, friend. That's where @mjrhealth gets his/her bizarre theolgy from . . .