Search results

Let's make this easy for you. Why don't YOU tell me who Mary have birth to? Was He just a baby - or was He a BOTH man and God? This shouldn't be too difficult for you . . .

If Jesus is NOT God - then He would have rebuked Thomas for falling to his knees and proclaiming Him as "My Lord and my GOD!" If He was NOT God and didn't rebuke Thomas - then He would have been in grave sin. Anyway - I listed SOME of the verses that proclaim Jesus as God - not ALL of them.

Actually - it's not considered inspired Scripture.

WRONG. If that's all it was about - then Judas didn't need to be "replaced". Judas needed a replacement because of the successive nature of the BISHOPRIC. Don't forget the word "Episkopay" used in Acts 1:20. It isn't just talking about some obscure reference to an "office" - it actually NAMES...

That's not necessarily true. A Gentile could have know ALL about this without being a Jew. The Romans knew about Jewish law and ritual - why wouldn't some of their subjects??

That's funny - the BIBLE does . . . Acts 1:20 "Let another take his office" The Greek word used here for "office" is "Episkopay" or, BISHOPRIC.

Actually - his nationality is NOT obvious. That entire area was ROMAN territory and governed by ROMAN law - so everybody was subject to them. The Bible is silent about the Thief's nationality.

What's "silly" about that?

Once again, Einstein - if he was a gentile - he was NOT under the Law. NOTHING you can say will change that . . .

And the Bible doesn't say a WORD about immersion. You can baptize by pouring - even in a river . . .

No - YOU'RE too lazy to address the challenge. Suffice it to say - you have LOST this argument and I have once again exposed your fraudulence. Consider yourself Scripturally and historically SPANKED . . .

Because even a pagan can be saved by turning to Christ. You didn't know that??

More ignorance . . . First of all - Buiried in the earth and immersed in water are two DIFFERENT things. Burial is not "immersion. Secondly - we don't know what John the Baptist did because Scripture is SILENT on the matter. NOWHERE does it talk about immersion. Finally - Sprinkling is...

That doesn't matter. We're not talking about Christ. We're talking about the Thief on the cross. For all we know, he was a gentile and a pagan - and NOT under the Law.

Once again - you're DODGING the issue. Give me a summary - and keep your links. THEN - address the Early Church Fathers I presented: Ignatius of Antioch Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give...

If he wasn't Jewish - he wasn't under the Mosaic Law.

No - I'm not watching any videos. I asked YOU to explain since YOU are the one who made the idiotic claim. I ALSO asked you to address the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers who wrote about the Catholic Church centuries PRIOR your fictitious date of 335 AD. STILL waiting for your reply . . .

You don't even know if the Thief on the cross was Jewish.

Then man-up and provide some actual historical evidence for your claim. For a guy who refuses to explain himself - it's no that difficult to believe that you were once an elected official . . .

Never form your doctrines around the exceptions to the rule - and there are ALWAYS exceptions. The Thief on the cross was one such exception. And WHO is claiming that Jesus needed regeneration?? YOU ain't HIM. There is NOTHING that is "purely symbolic" about Baptism.