Search results

All of us have presented a Biblical case for sola scriptura. No matter what argument is presented you simply reject it. It is the argument of an atheist (note: I am not calling you one). No matter how much evidence one may set in front of an atheist that Christ rose again from the dead, will the...

This is a non sequitur. BTW, in every day speech, a non sequitur is "It can also refer to a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question:" This comes from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) Where it also states: "Many types of known non sequitur...

Here is where one might say that the Catholic doctrine has changed. Christ doesn't change. God doesn't change. The Bible doesn't change. But on this topic the RCC has changed its stance. For centuries it stood against evolution. Now it allows evolution. Why the change? It has caved in to...

I believe I can. But here is what is more important. While the Bible is not a book of science it is scientifically accurate. That is true science does not contradict the Bible or vice-versa. Science has always supported what the Bible says. In fact if the principles taught in Lev.17:11 some 1400...

I was answering your post. This post shows that even the Pope is dubious as to the whereabouts of Peter's bones, and says it really doesn't matter. What have we been discussing; do you forget? In post #68 I said: Let's deal with this first. What gives you the right to so easily dismiss the...

Archaeology has proved it for me, and for you. Article after article demonstrates that he was not in Rome. Is that all that counts? Really? And if they tell you that humans live on Pluto will you believe them? If they tell you that you have children on Jupiter will you believe them? How far...

Along with the RCC you no doubt are guilty of idolatry. Are the relics in Rome those of Peter? Even Pope Francis admits that he doesn't know for sure, and then he says, it really doesn't matter. Pope Francis on Sunday venerated the purported remains of his first ever predecessor, as the...

Let's deal with this first. What gives you the right to so easily dismiss the archaeological evidence found that the remains of Peter are in Jerusalem and not in Rome. Peter was never in Rome and you don't have that evidence. Prove it.

Neither can history that hasn't been revised by the Catholic Church. Peter's bones are not in Rome and there isn't much but some scant tradition that can put him there. Consider this history: While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries...

“Why doesn’t he just say so,” you ask. He does. Be patient. His exact statement was: the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways: --It is a very clear statement that he makes: The Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and...

Again, the arguments for sola scriptura are laid out in detail here: http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/ Knowing the objections that Catholics have to sola scriptura, Norman Geisler writes a defense of sola scriptura. In ten different posts Herbert took the time to answer...

Then why not accept it? That is your opinion. Would you care to substantiate it with a bit of evidence? Why is it like gossip spreading that which is false? Jesus said, John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32...

Believing in the God-breathed authority of Scripture is in effect believing in sola scriptura. If it is our inspired authority what authority is greater, which in essence is sola scriptura. I am glad we can agree. Not true. That "fact" is fact according to the RCC. You read according to RCC...

Mary is a sinner and admitted as much. Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. --Here is Mary's admission that she, a sinner, is in need of a Saviour. Only sinners need a Savior. Why else would she use the word "Saviour"? What is...

They weren't opinions. Biblical truth compared to what the RCC catechism says is not simple opinion. The RCC is wrong because its teaching goes directly contrary to the Bible. I have demonstrated that many times. You call it "interpretive traditions." That is ironic! I don't have "interpretive...

It comes down to a matter of authority. Who or what is your authority when it comes to salvation? Some say that Shakespeare is "inspired." Or that he is just as inspired as the Bible is. Isn't that true? If so, can one find how to be saved in the pages of Shakespeare and will you allow...

If I go to Second Cup, a cafe known for its coffee, and order a cider I will be served a hot apple drink. I have done it. I stopped in Germany once on my way home from the mission field. I stopped at a kiosk and asked for a "cider." I was about to get an alcoholic beverage, and when I realized...

One can find many quotes from j. Martyr, many of them seemingly contradictory. Here are some things to remember. First, he wrote in Greek. What we read are translations. Meaning is always lost in translation. There is no such thing as "the Eucharist" in the Bible. Obviously he is wrong on this...

You are using the Latin Rite church as your default for true, accurate and closest to the original, whereas it is one of the churches that is further from the truth when compared to all the others. Evangelical churches are far closer to the truth than the Latin rite Church. There was no church...

What are you talking about? There is no contradiction in the Scripture! But there are many times that you contradict the scriptures. In fact there are many times that the RCC Catechism contradicts the Scriptures, thus pointing people to hell, just as the Pharisees did. That is why Jesus...