Search results

I'm not changing the subject - but I am not going to answer any more of your questions until you start answering some of mine. Every time I answer one of your questions - you ask another one. Now, it's time for you to get off the pot and start addressing some of those 35 verses I presented that...

No - not until you start answering MY questions. Now - start addressing the 35 verses I presented that prove the Trinity. PS - What's a "bo-bo?? Are you trying to say "boo-boo"?

Your complete butchery of the English language aside - I did no such thing. I simply showed you that Jesus is IN the Father and the Father is IN Him - and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Both. Trinity. No - address the 35 verses I gave YOU . . .

Careuful there - your ignorance is showing again. The Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The Church is Christ on earth (Acts 9:4-5). There is no such things as Christ OR the Church. The Church is His Body and He is...

I already addressed Rev. 1:4-8. It is Jesus. HOW do we know this? Go to the last chapter (22:13) and there He is again, calling Himself by the SAME title: The Alpha and the Omega. You haven't answered ANY of the 35 verses I presented.

And those who compiled the Bible being led by the Holy Spirit declared the Deuterocanonical Books as inspired. So, why would you believe PART of what they declared and not ALL of it if they were being led by the Holy Spirit?? Where do you think that the Holy Spirit fell off-track in the...

bbyrd was referring to me as a "lawyer", so I was illustrating a courtroom scene. Pay attention to the conversation . . .

Prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:43-45), for one . . . How about where Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration (John 10:36) to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36? How about where Paul (Eph. 6:13-17) got the idea for the "Armor of...

Terms like "Apocryphal" and "pseudoepigraphical" as they pertain to the Deuterocanonicals are simply Protestant denial.

Prove that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture? I already HAVE. - I have presented over 150 direct quotes, references and allusions to these Books in the New Testament, proving that Jesus and the NT wrioters studied from them. - I have shown that these Books were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon...

I'll make it easy for you. If you claim to believe the Deuterocanonical Books to be Scripture and you still refer to them as "apocryphal" works - then you also have to accept uninspired works like the Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistles of Barnabas, the Letter of Clement, The Protoevangelium of...

No - that's a relativist cop-out. Scripture isn't about a person's perspective. It's the Word of God - whether a person believes it to be or not.

When YOU are courageous enough to address the 35 verses I presented that prove the Trinity - I'l answer more of your questions. As it stands now - I've done nothing BUT answer your questions - and you have addressed NONE of mine . . .

That's illogical. It is a doctrine, therefore it IS something. YOU believe the Trinity to be a lie, so you reject the lie. You've been debating your opposition to this doctrine on dozens of posts - and now you are saying that you've been debating nothing?? That doesn't make you very bright...

No. Scripture is the REVEALED written Word of God. It's not "hidden".

Did it ever occur to you that those 5 Catholics were just as ignorant of the fact that these Books are not apocryphal as most Protestants? Funny thing about lies. You tell them long enoguh and most people start to believe in them.

It's still a rejection, Einstein . . .

Pay attention bbyrd. FHII was claiming to believe that these Books are inspired - while referring to them as "Apocrypha". This is a contradiction in terms. It's what most people would refer to as an "oxymoron."

Of course you can't. We would have to completely erase 15 centuries of Christendom to arrive at that whopper . . .

Disbelief in something is rejection of it. Maybe you should pick up a thesaurus . . .