Search results

I don't even know what you're talking about. All I know is I started a thread, arguing that the scandal and crisis of pederasty and pedophilia was not due to faggotry among the ministerial priests and bishops. I was roundly and conclusively shouted down. I licked my wounds, and considered...

Isaiah Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be...

So how did they do that? What was their primary argument? Calvinist professors would do the same for Calvinism too ofc, your point being that this is not abnormal, which I agree is true. Speaking of which, is it possible to set aside the question of early Hebrews appearing to say that the...

https://lite.cnn.com/2024/12/23/politics/trump-us-expansion-panama-canada-greenland/index.html “ President-elect Donald Trump appears to be entertaining an American territorial expansion that, if he’s serious, would rival the Louisiana Purchase or the deal that netted Alaska from Russia. “ In...

When was that?

They are both terms not found in Scripture but which are true anyway. The Church Jesus and His Apostles founded. I gave my reasons why. It's for clarification, identification, definition purposes. I am. But I wouldn't call it an ism if I had my druthers, but I don't, because there is...

So you are Seventh Day Adventist or no? You didn't answer the question.

It's fair to inquire about the uniform testimony of an entire discipline devoted to the study of the topic in question. Once you've determined a whole entire discipline is uniformly agreed on something within their purview, OK. But now in order to be responsible you have to entertain the...

ofc. I wouldn't. He just called it the Church. It's you all other branches of Christian tradition which have made it necessary just to make sure we're not being ambiguous. We can't just say we're the Church simpliciter, because "Church" can and does mean so many different things to so many...

That's just the term. The Real Presence, meaning, the ontological presence of Christ in the Eucharist, not just His symbolic presence.

The Church which Jesus and His Apostles founded. I'd just assume call it the Church. But there are branches now, so the need for qualification and clarification.

Like Trinity.

Roman Catholicism.

Before it had to be qualified with "Roman" to distinguish it from other branches who also wanted to call themselves the Catholic Church (a term which was first used by Ignatius of Antioch in like AD 105 or so). The Church Jesus and the Apostles founded. Whoever needed that qualifier in order...

I'm supposing it had a beginning, I'm asking, when was that?

Not really. At the council at Ephesus the bishops praised the then sitting pope as holding a distinct office from the rest of them. That was in the early 400s. There's really no "older than the church in Rome" though, since Romans were among those who heard Peter's first sermon in Acts 2...

It's usually mocking, but again, that's OK. Goes with the territory. This is Theology Online. So isn't it interesting that in one sacrament, baptism, water is used, which symbolizes blood, and then in another, which you believe symbolizes blood also, but it's wine instead? It doesn't seem...

There's nothing fallacious in the question. I just want to know where you locate in history the beginning of "the Romanist 'church'".

I don't, but it's OK. Goes with the territory. And my desire is to get you all back to the way Christ wants us all believers to experience Him day-to-day, especially with Him very intimately in the Eucharist. Speaking of which, did you ever consider that the water of baptism symbolizes...

Before then it was just called the Church. Takes two to tango.