Search results

That’s a LIE because I’ve given you evidence and you have rejected it.

No - YOU’RE stuck on personal names because you don’t understand the idiom, “In the name of”. It’s that simple . . .

Pay attention, sparky – I said there is no such thing as RE-Baptism – IN SHRIST. They were Baptized with the Baptism of John - THEN they were Baptized in the Baptism of Christ. Learn how to read . . .

Because that was the decision that Peter made. It was HIS office to assign, having primacy over the others. It doesn't. He could have died anywhere. He just happened to be martyred in Rome . . . “ZERO” evidence?? Ahhh – there’s that incredible hypocrisy again . . .

Yet you are demanding explicit Scriptural evidence for the Papacy. Sounds very hypocritical . . .

In your last post, YOU stated that when a person is “saved” – they are saved forever. Yet, a few sentences earlier, you stated the following Catholic belief: “No one receives Salvation until a bodily DEATH occurs.” Soooo, make up your mind.

No - those caveats are TO the one who is converted. “Converted” doesn’t mean you won’t RE-vert . . .

And, as usual, you blather on with mind-numbingly verbose word-salads when you are shown to be wrong . . .

No – but it disproves Sola Scriptura and the fallacy that everything in written down explicitly . . . So, you actually believe that Scripture is WRONG here?? Can you show me another verse of Scripture where somebody misquotes another verse while fulfilling a prophecy? Peter’s successor as...

The Bible tells us explicitly that we can LOSE our salvation by our OWN doing. (Matt. 7:19-23, Matt. 10:22, Matt. 24:13, Matt. 25:31–46, John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:22, 1 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 10:12, 1 Tim. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6, Heb. 3:12-14, Heb. 6:4-6, Heb. 10:26-27, 2 Pet...

There’s NO such thing as “RE-Baptism” in Christ. YOU just got wet the second time around . . .

You can repeat it ALL day long and you’ll STILL be wrong. Repeating a LIE doesn’t make you right. The onus is on YOU to prove this nonsense . . . Which means that TWO people are wrong instead of just ONE . . .

NOPE. You’re stuck on personal names because you lack the ability to understand what “in the bane of” means. I’ve educated you on this point repeatedly – even listing MANY scholarly sources on the matter - yet you still fail to understand . .

Evodius was NOT the 2nf Pope, not Ignatius the 3rd. They succeeded Peter’s See in Antioch. The Primary See was Rome, where Peter eventually presided and was martyred.

First of all, John tells us that NOT everything Jesus said and did was written doen (John 21:25). In Acts 1:20 Peter is speaking while they are electing a successor for Judas. Peter says: “Let another take his office” (Acts 1:20). The Greek word used here for “office” is “Episkopay”...

WHY would I do that if I already to you NOT to use it for theological purposes?? That doesn't make ANY sense . . . Peter absolutely was the first Pope - although "Pope" is not an official title. It simply means "Papa" (father). It's a term of endearment. In the 3nd century, in his master...

Ummmm, what HASN'T that got to do with the Papascy??

Thank you for inadvertentlly giving a perfect example of why salvation is a LIFELONG pocess and NOT a one-time, slam-dunk event. Because Scripture alludes to it when ther Angel calls Mary, Krcharitomrnr (Luke 1:28). This title is defined as,“ completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with...

Of course you're not - or you would have provided it already. Once again, telline LIES is like a sickness with you.

I guarantee you that I have studied the works and writings of your PRotestant Fathers FAR more that YOU have.