Search results

Really? Ummmmm, can you show me the "documented" evidence that @kcnalp presented to me that warranted this kind of reaction? I'll wait right here for your response . . .

It's glaringly-apparent that YOU don't actually read the posts, either. How did you guys make it to adulthood? Actually - the BEST question is: WHY don't you guys READ the posts you're ranting against? I already corrected you about this way back in post #16 . . .

Perfect. Then, all YOU have to do is to disprove what I posted - which you haven't done. You made the WRONG argument . . .

WOW. It's like talking to a wall - without the personality . . . I suggest you RE-READ posts #17 & 24.

Are you asking me a serious question - or are you just playing dumb? I already told you that Strong's Greek Concordance and Lexicon was the source. Which part of that statement are you having difficulty with??

That wasn't the original claim, Einstein. And moving the goalposts when you can't prove your point doesn't bolster your argument, either. The claim was made that the Catholic Church and Islam had "JESUIT ROOTS". This is not only anti-Historical - it's woefully-ignorant and incredibly stupid...

I think I owe @TLHKAJ an apology. YOUR rant is just about as stupid and ignorant . . . In fact - it's so idiotic - it's difficult to know where to begin. I guess I'll just start by destroying your false moniker of "Romanism". There is NO such thing as "Romanism". There is only the "Catholic...

What I posted is linguistically accurate - and taken from Strong's Greek Concordance and Lexicon. THEY are the Greek Scholars . . .

So, like a typical anti-Catholic - you didn't actually READ my post. THIS is the line you completely glossed over in your tirade: "The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “ekklesia katah-holos”."...

Actually - it IS . . . Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church: “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the...

For starters – the Catholic Church goes all the way back to the Apostles. We see, in the writings of FIRST CENTURY Bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, which he wrote on his way to be martyred in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century – his description of this...

Congratulations. You have just posted the most asinine manure of the day. Hopefully, tomorrow will be a better day for you . . .

Yup - that's what I figured you'd say . . .

Well, I guess you're free to believe that Mary Magdalene is the sister of Lazarus - even though Scripture doesn't make this claim. The "other Mary" in question is indeed a relation to Mary, mother of Jesus - but it is highly unlikely that they are siblings because they have the same name. The...

WRONG. I already answered your question. Did YOUR mother give birth to a meat puppet - or to a Person with a body, soul and spirit? PS - Do you have ANY idea what "reproved" means? I didn't think so . . .

The article in question doesn't negate the other accounts of the Crucifixion. It merely focuses on Mark's account - but it DOES mention the other two accounts by Matthew and John. YOUR statement that the article "fails" because of this is what I'm getting at. Soooo, what, exactly does it...

In other words - you can't refute the Scriptural and linguistic evidence I presented. That's what I thought. As for your tagline, as I told you before - Christians don't "argue" with the Word of God. We argue with ignorant people like YOU who misrepresent it . . .

Gee Bart - why the silence?? STILL waiting for an educated response . . .

And once again – you have illustrated how cherry-picking phrases out of Scriptural verses gets you into trouble – AND heresy. Heb. 10:5 merely states that God prepared a body for the Son. God prepares ALL of our bodies. Does that make YOUR m other a “surrogate”? No, Einstein – it doesn’t make...

No – you’re all over the place on this. As I stated earlier – - FIRST, you said that Jesus wasn’t a human person. - THEN, you recanted and stated that He IS a human person. - NOW – you’re claiming that Moses was God. Moving the goal posts with every response only diminishes your argument...