Search results

I find it hard to believe that he's ever been to Mass, given this comment. He tilting at the windmill of a straw man in that case and I am likewise disinclined to take anything else he says on the subject seriously.

Thanks for the advice which, should I ever find myself to be in the misfortune to be in the Whore, I will gladly heed, as I am sure also will my uncle who is a Catholic priest. But as neither of us are in the clutches of said Whore...

I note that Ignatius 'means nothing to' you, yet someone called Barnes (who he?) apparently does. Given that Ignatius was discipled by the guys who recorded the words of Jesus in the Discourse on the Bread of Life, I would hazard a more than educated guess that he is far more qualified to give...

Whaaat? Are you now arrogating to yourself the same status as John the Baptist?!!

Which supports my contention: if the Deuterocanonical books were not sacred Scripture to them, they would have identified the source as Apocryphal when quoting from them I trust therefore you have excised the passages from your OT which were originally written in Aramaic eg: parts of Daniel...

You don't address the point I made at all: welfare states aren't the prime cause of this; if they were this would have happened decades ago. They will come to an end in their present form because of this situation, but they haven't in themselves caused it.

I think it would be incumbent on Him and the NT authors to condemn part of a publication from which they themselves were quoting: the LXX. Yet at no time do any of them say when so quoting "It is written [insert quote] - but by the way guys there are 7 books in there that aren't really Scripture...

But what has getting wet got to do with being saved? If it is a public testimony of salvation, I can stand up with or without a microphone and speak of this. I don't need water for this. What's the point of baptism?

Nope. Just recognising that your argument is also from silence. Except that He doesn't list the books within those subdivisions! 1 & 2 Maccabees, for example, being historical texts, could also be included in the 'Prophets' by Him. I find it odd that, given that the LXX was in common...

Why do them, then?

If baptism does nothing other than get you wet (the classic Baptist mantra), then why on earth bother with it?

If 'entitlements', as you call our welfare states, were the problem, our economies would have collapsed decades ago (the Welfare State in the UK has been in existence since the 1940s and Germany's for much longer than that). Roger is correct: the real problem is the Greeks and others effectively...

DHK, Jesus was talking about prophetic martyrs, not books of the OT. If He'd meant to comment on the latter, He would have said so. How do you know that Tertullian was right?

Hmmm....Paul in Col 2:11 talks of the Colossians (presumably both male and female) being (spiritually) 'circumcised'; indeed, this passage supports the classic Reformed view of baptism.

Seconded. Glad to see the troll has been banned.

So the law would in those circumstances permit an abortion based on self-defence of the life of the mother ie: one death instead of two.

1. You're still missing the elephant in the drawing room with Tertullian: at no stage does he say what's in this 'whole volume', so all we are left with is your own conjecture. 2. The 'circulation' evidence merely shows that some books were circulated to some congregations, no more, no less...

Seems pretty unequivocal to me.

We're still exposed to this mess even if we're out of the Euro, unfortunately.

And I guess Jesus Himself didn't get the Baptists' memo either: "a man is born again [i]by water[/b] and the Spirit" (Jn 3:5). Oh well...