Search results

Then, tell me why there are over 150 references to the Deuterocanonical Books in the NT. Not ONE of you has been able to answer this question.

You STILL haven't told m how praying the Lord's Prayer 3 times a day is "anti-Biblical". The Didache doesn't make the claim that this is a Biblical mandate any more that Protestant practices like "Altar Calls", "Infant Dedications", accepting Jesus Christ as your "Personal Lord and Savior" or...

Thank you for that obvious anti-Catholic cut-and-paste job. A little google search was all I needed to discover that YOU didn't write it. Unfortunately, even though YOU were duped by this ignorant diatribe - it is not a true representation of the linguistic implications of John 6. In 1...

And this is a false statement - as are the anti-Biblical claims of Pom2014 that the Eucharist has "no usage" in the lives of Christians. Jesus Himself instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Funny - but I don't read anywhere that He said "This is just a symbol of my Body" and "This is not...

Bad argument. For starters, Jesus coming down from Heaven in the flesh is NOT a "reincarnation". It was the Incarnation of God. Jesus was never "reincarnated". After His Resurrection, He appeared in His glorified Body - and that is the Body that ascended to Heaven. Jesus's flesh wasn't...

Judging by the fact that it is an almost verbatim quote from The Didache - it can be deduced with even a modicum of logic that it is from . . . drumroll please . . . The Didache. But, YOU can continue to live in denial . . .

Please enlighten me how praying the Lord's Prayer 3 times a day is "Anti-Scriptural". Do you understand what "anti-Scriptural" means?? It means something that repudiates Scripture.

Like I said - we can't argue with history - but you CAN argue with corrupted manuscripts. You need to do a little homework and study the 1st century document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) - which is was the earliest catechism the people had LONG before the Canon of the...

. . . copied by Catholic scribes, who left the footnotes in the, margins. Again - you just can't argue with the historical facts . . .

No - the Sermon on the Mount wasn't a mere footnote written on the side of a page by an ancient Catholic scribe . . .

The mere fact that YOU admit it is a "doxology" illustrates that it is not part of Scripture. Doxology is a liturgical expression of praise to God. Thanks for admitting that . . .

Do you have a problem praising God and asking for His help 3 times a day - or do you just like "lol-ing"??

And your typical strategy of denial in light of the historical facts is noted. You just can't argue with history . . .

Apparently, you didn't R*E*A*D my last post: This doxology used to be a side note when being handwritten by Catholic scribes because it was said during the mass. It was mistakenly included in the text of Matt. 6. In other words, this doxology is not included in Catholic Bibles. Since the...

Wrong. This doxology used to be a side note when being handwritten by Catholic scribes because it was said during the mass. It was mistakenly included in the text of Matt. 6. It was NEVER part of Scripture, but from the Didache, a 1st century Church document: Didache - Section VIII 1. Let not...

How so? Why does it add non-scriptural text such as in Matt. 6:13? The following phrase from the KJV is NOT in the original manuscripts and is, in fact from the 1st century document, The Didache: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Exposing the truth isn't considered "attacking". Telling LIES is what I consider false attacks. Being one of the main proliferators of anti-Catholic lies - YOU should know the difference . . .

Uhhhh - No. Anti-Catholic attacks and bearing false witness are what's sinful. I just expose them.

Ummmm . . . I rest my case.

Amen.