Search results

Why are you afraid to respond to my post #122?? There is NO need to start a new thread as I dealt DIRECTLY with the OP, which asked the following question: "2. Why was she a virgin and did she have to be for the prophecy to come true? (The Bible states that she had other children though.)" So...

Being Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28) - it's probably unlikely that she would have refused.

Yup - and therein lies the problem with anti-Catholics. They attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

I already showed you - and THIS is why I suggested that you RE-read post #84. The Scriptures are CRYSTAL CLEAR that James the Less (Apostle) is the son of Mary, the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus and "Adelphe" (relative) of Mary, mother of Jesus (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, Luke 6:15, John 19:25). Which...

Okay - let's answer this question - which directly relates to the OP. First of all - the Word of God is FULL of Types and Fulfillments. The NT Fulfillments are ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT Types - without exception. Moses - Jesus Israel/Judaism - Christ's Church Peter -...

I haven't "ignored" anything. YOU need to explain to me why it would be a problem for Paul to refer to James the Less as the "brother" (adelphos) of the Lord if he WAS IN FACT related to Jesus. As I showed you in post #84 - the word "adelphos" is LIBERALLY used in the NT for MANY thigs...

"Awesome" logic? Paul referred to the Apostle James (the Less) as the "brother (adelphos) of the Lord" (Gal.1:19). I don't know WHERE you get that he was a uterine brother of Jesus, given the overwhelming Scriptural evidence I gave you that the Apostle James (the Less) is the son of...

Well, it's been explained to you a few different ways, so if you still don't understand, I can't help you. I "dumbed it down" as much as I could . . .

What's wrong with Paul pointing out the fact that James was related to Jesus?? According to the Scriptures I showed you, James WAS related to Jesus - because his mother was a relative of the mother of Jesus.

So - you're a Biblical literalist? Do you believe that the sun "rises" and "sets" as described in Psalm 113:3 - or do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? Do you NOT understand that the Bible is NOT to be taken in a wooden, literal sense in ALL things? Do you believe that the 120...

What on EARTH does this have to do with the Scriptural and linguistic evidence I presented? I presented FACTUAL and statistical proof - and YOU gave me opinions. If that is your way of admitting that you don't have any actual evidence - just say so . . .

Here's a fairly easy explanation of the facts about the "Brethren" (Adelphoi) of Jesus. FIRST of all - the Greek word for "Brother" (Adelphos(oi)) is used liberally in Scripture for MANY things such as uterine sibling, half-brother, step brother, cousin, uncle, friend, neighbor, fellow...

That is Scripturally impossible. As we read in 1 Cor. 3:10‐15 - the person being judged WILL BE SAVED. Nobody who is thrown into the Lake of Fire is ever saved. This is definitely talking about a third state. As for Lazarus and the Rich Man - you need to understand TWO things: First, the...

The Catholic Teaching on Purgatory or "Final Purification of the Elect" (CCC 1030‐1032) isn't necessarily about actual time. This teaching is based in Scripture (2 Macc. 12:42‐46, 1 Cor. 3:10‐15m Matt. 12:32, Matt. 18:32‐35, Luke 12:58‐59) and is more about a process than a span of time. We see...

The idea of a "Limbo" was never a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. It was ALWAYS just a way of trying to reconcile what happened to people about whom Scripture is silent - such as miscarried babies, etc. The Catholic Church has never changed a doctrinal position in 2000 years.

Yes - the Great Commission was a et of instructions given to the leaders of His Church - NOT to the crowds in general.

WRONG. You are purposely conflating the reckoning of a day at Creation to the reckoning of a day within the Law. This is caused by the fact that you refuse to accept that the Sabbath wasn't created until Exod. 16:23 - and it was done so for MAN (Mark 2:27). Like I said before - this argument...

And herein lies the problem with you Biblical literalists. Earlier, YOU posted a verse where Jesus mentioned that a "day" was 12 hours. He was merely talking about the time that the sun shined - NOT an entire day. An ENTIRE day includes the morning and evening - of the SAME day. When it is...

By YOUR flawed logic a "twelve hour day" would mean that the Sabbath ENDS at sunrise. You need to be able to understand the language of Scripture. Gen 1:5 explicitly states that the Light was called "Day" and the Darkness was called "Night". This is why MOST translations make it CLEAR that...

Wrong, as usual. The Catechism is the teachings of Christ's Church found in Scripture. Besides, Einstein - the argument was ABOUT a Catholic definition, so the Catechism is crucial to the discussion.