Search results

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.

Where? Can you cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Even if it started in AD 33?

Literally this is Roman Catholicism, Jesus Christ is our One mediator, because He is our High Priest. Do you have "the Romanist 'chuch'" starting after Constantine? Earlier?

The name of the office is rock, and he calls Peter rock because the Father in Heaven elected the first pope to sit in the chair.

Yeah big time—agreed. But come on—you like Paul—Paul is the king of giant run-on sentences lol. ;) All right. Well, I admit this—I shouldn't have focused on the masculine feminine thing. I realize now that the best way to argue my point is to just say how remarkable it is that Jesus named...

It could also be trained to know that when a receiver is wide open that it doesn't take an Aaron Rodgers or Joe Montana to throw a "strike", and also when an elite receiver catches a "ball". These are the types of scenarios I'd figure an NFL A.I. bot could be trained to do. As was mentioned in...

All of that and more was considered in the thought Clete. The target of this idea was the passer efficiency rating which is a four-part metric where interceptions, completions, yards, and touchdowns are all normalized (divided by) pass attempts. As you point out, there are numerous scenarios...

So confident! Let's see: (The auto-numbering in the code is broken, ignore the numbering, I just quoted the post and broke it up by clicking Enter.) They don't know. "They don't know." They don't know. They don't know. They don't know. Same to you. You gave absolutely no support...

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual...

I brought up the prospect of a "balls-and-strikes" approach to passer efficiency rating in the NFL back before large language model generative A.I. models were a common thing, even before art A.I. and chess A.I. bots maybe, but now that we're here, the NFL should definitely imo put an A.I. bot...