Search results

More ignorance regarding Jewish culture . . . The term "Firstborn" doesn't indicate that other children came later. This term simply means, "The one who opened his mother's womb" (Exod 13:2). READ your Bible before posting . . .

The bible never mentions that Jesus had siblings - OR that Mary had "other children". READ post #21 and address those points - or simply admit that you aren't equipped to do so . . .

I'm not a Catholic priest - I am a layperson. I didn't copy this our of the Catechism. this is ALL from Scripture and rudimentary linguistics and history. If you can't address the points I made regarding Mary's Perpetual Virginity in post #21 - just admit it and move on. But, don't blame the...

WRONG. The process of sanctification BEGINS with being born again and continues for the life of the person. EVERYBODY is born again at Baptism (John 3:5).

The fact t hat YOU don't believe doesn't make ONE BIT of difference. The promises of Baptism are not nullified because of YOUR lack of faith. The promise is for the children as WELL as the adults (Acts 2:39).

No - you're adding to Scripture what is NOT there. James 5:14-15 says NOTHING about the sick person's illness being caused by their sins. It simply states that while the presbyters are anointing and praying over them to heal them fro their illness - and IF they have sins, that those sins will...

Then I should clarify by saying that yours is simply a continuation of the "non-Catholic" deflection here.

As I laid out in post #21 - the case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity is OVERWHELMING. In fact - the Scriptural, historical and linguistic is so overwhelming that ANY evidence that she had "other" children" is pretty much nonexistent. Post #21 shows that there is not ONE SHRED of Scriptural...

And my questions about the Protestant traditions surrounding Baptism and the Early Church's teachings on Infant Baptism DIRECTLY relete to this topic. It's not a "tangent" of anything. Yours is simply a continuation of the Protestant deflection here.

HOW is that a "sidetrack"?? It directly correlates to the topic.

Yes, Jane - that is my perspective. That's the whole point of a discussion. The problem I've seen on this thread, however, is the total reluctance to explain: a) Where Protestant traditions originated surrounding Baptism (i.e., backwards dunking). b) Why the Early Church Baptized infants and...

Of course I am - because I asked where the Protestant tradition of backwards dunking during Baptism came from. We can't have fairness now - can we . . .

What is truly amazing is how so many amateurs in the 21st century think they understand what the original languages and cultures were talking about and read into Scripture what is NOT there. YOURS is a perfect example of this . . . Let's start with the names of the "Adelphoi" you mentioned -...

I never said that. I believe that repentance SHOULD precede Baptism - for those that are able. For those that cannot, like babies or the severely retarded - they shouldn't be excluded simply because they are incapable of repenting. The Holy Spirit does not flee from them just because they are...

Okay - where was the "repenting" of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8? NOTHING about his having repented - just hearing the Gospel and being Baptized. We have to look at the entire CONTEXT of Baptism in Scripture - not just the cherry-picked verses that you want to look at. In some instances...

ALL sin. Adam's sin has been imputed on us ALL. ALL of us have a fallen nature due to HIS sin. It's not a sin that WE committed but we are no less innocent of it. Because of our fallen nature, we are imperfect and have the proclivity towards sin. EVERYBODY - from the tiniest baby to the...

Yup - and the "WHY" is spiritual regeneration - even for infants. This is what Jesus taught (John 3:5), this is what Peter taught (Acts 2:38), this is what Paul taught (Col. 2:11-12). This is what the Early Church taught and has been the constant living teaching of the historic Christian faith...

Dude - PLEASE take an English writing course because I have absolutely NO idea what you are trying to say. Your sentence structure is as poor and fragmented as your theology . . .

I'm not a Catholic Priest. NOT sure where you got that . . .

WHO cares?? YOU care. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate. The ENTIRE debate is about the Tradition of Infant Baptism. The Catholic position is that it is an Apostolic Tradition - handed down by the APOSTLES themselves. I have presented several writings from the Early Church...