Search results

The only thing that's being discussed is whether someone can choose to not believe the Gospel, after previously choosing to believe it.

It ought to be strengthening for us to logically conclude that you can't prove God doesn't exist. But this doesn't prove that He does exist, just because you can't prove that He does not exist. But you could prove that the Resurrection of Christ was a fictional event instead of a nonfiction...

The saving grace is that even if the bishop is an outright fraud and doesn't even believe in Christ, when he presides over the sacraments when they are celebrated licitly then Jesus is really present there anyway. The CCP can't stop Jesus.

It's not explicit. It doesn't conflict with the idea that there is a 'pause' in there somewhere, but it also doesn't prove that any 'pause' happened either. In contrast the New Covenant is called "eternal" and or "everlasting" explicitly.

But if they didn't talk about it then it's an argument from silence that they taught it at all.

Man are you drunk?

We had a whole thread about that. It was never resolved, it's still an open question whether something called an "eternal" covenant could ever be 'put on hold' or 'paused' or anything like that. It was certainly never positively proved in or with any scripture.

Yeah basically agreed.

Catholicism is a 'goldmine' of freedom. But it's not 'Old Jed Clampett shooting a hole in the ground (because he missed what he was shooting at) and accidentally striking oil' freedom----you have to actually mine for it in Catholicism. You have to get to work! But what work? Study the...

You're right. It's unpersuasive. If we were to try to 'piece together' the New Covenant from just the Old Testament, what would we 'come up' with? It's a good thing that God did not leave that task for us to do, instead He provided Twelve Apostles. He trained them and taught them...

This is what I quoted (excerpted), Jeremiah 31:34 " for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Are you trying to tell me that this doesn't sound like "Paul's Gospel of the uncircumcision" to you? (1st Corinthians 15:3 " ...Christ died for our sins according to...

No. Just the excerpt I quoted. The one I excerpted does.

But not necessarily exclusively.

Sad theological misunderstanding on the part of the priest.

Just sounds like "Paul's Gospel to the uncircumcision" to me.

You some sort of universalist? Saying it doesn't make it so. I know that. What I do not know but that you all seem so certain of, is that the New Covenant definitely doesn't involve or include Gentiles, and isn't related to "Paul's Gospel to the uncircumcision." I don't know that.

The Gospel of Mark is known to originate with Peter. Mark 14:23 " And [Jesus] took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." So Peter knew by then, by the time...

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

There isn't any necessary reason to not believe in six days.

I believe the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had 'rings' in its trunk, it doesn't mean I think the thing is billions of years old. God said "I just made this" so it doesn't matter how many 'rings' are in its trunk to me, He made it with rings is all. I don't have any problem with that...