Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $28,352
33%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by D-fendr

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/27/2014 9:34:54 PM PDT · 587 of 1,307
    D-fendr to A_perfect_lady
    give me an example of the religious beliefs you think I have

    Ok. Absolute values - unconditional values - are by definition not possible to prove using reason logic. The area of knowledge beyond reason/logic is religious. One needs to understand the terms here to continue; absolute = self-evident = inherent = intrinsic...

    So these beliefs, in this example, beliefs about values, are beyond the sphere of reason/logic and in the sphere of religion.

    Quick example: kindness is better than cruelty.

    IF kindness has inherent value for you, has value all other things being equal, then this is a belief in the sphere of religion.

    Perhaps kindness is not one of your religious beliefs. Maybe truth is. Or love. Or life.

    Whatever you believe has intrinsic value, value all on its own, that is a religious belief.

    It may even include why you get up in the morning. What your purpose in life is - as you believe it.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/27/2014 9:07:49 PM PDT · 584 of 1,307
    D-fendr to A_perfect_lady
    I cannot think of any views I have that could be called religious

    I felt pretty certain that you could not. But you do, every human who manages to get out of bed in the morning does. It's what makes us different from non-humans.

    Think of the logical tests you would put their claims to.

    You would be using the wrong test. You have to apply the right tool to get the right result; and logic applied to religious knowledge is the wrong tool.

    It's never productive to argue one religious view of truth versus another with someone who does not yet recognize that there is an area of human knowledge that is religious.

    Religious does not necessarily mean a deity or any of the schools you've mentioned thus far. It can, and is, defined as that area of human knowledge which transcends formal logic/reason - is beyond the capability of reason/logic to know.

    And, again, you know things in this area, or - at the least - you act as though you do.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/27/2014 8:55:55 PM PDT · 582 of 1,307
    D-fendr to Diamond
    Thanks for your reply; but I think if you re-read my post you'll see that your reply doesn't really address my point. One can claim they are fallible till they turn purple, but until they claim their dogma and doctrine are fallible, it's not really pertinent.

    The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself..

    There is no such interpretation and never has been and never can be. Scripture is ink on paper without some entity reading, interpreting, deriving doctrine from it.

    This is so obvious. The only way I can see a body trying to pass this as doctrine is in sheer desperate necessity; hoping no one says: "Ok, let's put the Holy Book on the stand and ask it then.."

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/27/2014 8:45:50 PM PDT · 581 of 1,307
    D-fendr to CynicalBear
    I don’t give my opinion.

    That's quite simple to disprove. Q.E.D.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/27/2014 8:41:19 PM PDT · 251 of 253
    D-fendr to CynicalBear
    Scripture according to scripture. It’s very clear if you read it without the influence of man.

    You reading it without the influence of you the man reading it.

    If someone cannot see the logical disconnect in your position in this post, there's not much else one can say.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/27/2014 3:10:05 PM PDT · 561 of 1,307
    D-fendr to roamer_1
    Thanks for your reply. I think your argument elevates the debate for the better. I'm glad to go there with you.

    Any church, congregational or not, associated or not, which holds to creeds or confessions, is not by definition, holding to 'scripture alone', as any creed or confession constitutes a 'tradition'.

    Yes, exactly. So arguments against any and all tradition are false in practice.

    the Bible is the only infallible authority, and not the 'ONLY authority'..

    First, you still have the problem of scripture requiring a reader/interpreter - authority. In addition, I see this as another example of false in practice. I don't know of any Confessional or Creedal statement by an authority that admits it's creed is fallible. The Westminster Confession, for example, does not end with "but we could be wrong, after all we're fallible."

    I'm exaggerating here, but I think you can see the point: those stating what they believe to be absolute truth do not condition it, Protestants included.

    So there is, in practice, the necessity for another authority other than scripture and that authority claims it's creed, doctrine, dogma to be absolutely true without fail.

    Objections that the Church does so are a double standard.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/27/2014 2:08:37 PM PDT · 558 of 1,307
    D-fendr to A_perfect_lady

    I’m going to step back from any particular religious view and speak to your rejection of all.

    I think you are limiting yourself to a common episthemological box - one where what we can know is limited to two spheres: sense experience and reason logic.

    It’s the modern way after all. :)

    Yet everyone, you included knows - or acts as if they know - things beyond the the ability of sense and reason/logic.

    We can call what is known in this area religious, many do so. It transcends - but does not violate - sense and reason.

    So, you too have religious views in this sense. I think it likely you haven’t examined them or where they might come from.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/27/2014 1:53:57 PM PDT · 557 of 1,307
    D-fendr to roamer_1

    Sola scriptura is latin for “scripture alone.”

    In my arguments I’ve defined the doctrine sola scriptura that I’m arguing against.

    If you have some other doctrine in mind for scripture alone, I’m not sure if we have disagreements or not.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/26/2014 10:39:36 PM PDT · 501 of 1,307
    D-fendr to af_vet_1981; CynicalBear
    Of what denomination or sect church are you a member ?

    Good luck with that.. :)

  • "Is the Church invisible?"

    06/26/2014 9:15:08 PM PDT · 11 of 13
    D-fendr to matthewrobertolson
    Is the Church only invisible?

    Only if one leaves the visible Church.

    The doctrine of invisible only is making a virtue of necessity. If you leave the visible Church, it must, of necessity, be invisible only.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/26/2014 8:25:04 PM PDT · 489 of 1,307
    D-fendr to metmom
    Your interpretation of those verses add anything and everything else where it does not exist.

    Nope, not adding a thing to it. Accept it as it is - which is not "scripture alone." It's when you try to use it for "sola" that something needs to be added - that something being sola or alone. The verse is perfectly fine and clear otherwise.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/26/2014 7:29:47 PM PDT · 488 of 1,307
    D-fendr to Gamecock
    cling to the absurd concept of Sola Ecclesia

    A made up term perhaps generated from a stark difference between us as to what "Church" is.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/26/2014 7:26:31 PM PDT · 248 of 253
    D-fendr to HarleyD
    The Roman Catholic Church ceased to be the “Church” back around 600AD..

    When of course the gates of hell prevailed and the proto-calvinists took over. :)

    Orthodox Church does not recognize the Pope’s authority

    And neither teaches the authority of Calvin, Zwingli, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura. So join us, either lung.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/26/2014 7:22:03 PM PDT · 487 of 1,307
    D-fendr to CynicalBear
    they are not listening to the Holy Spirit but are listening to men.

    You seem to recommend we listen to the Holy Spirit according to CB, who is not a man?

    Logic fail.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/26/2014 7:20:00 PM PDT · 247 of 253
    D-fendr to CynicalBear
    The question has been answered multiple times

    With the same error:

    Scripture is the final authority

    Scripture according to whom, saying what according to whom?

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/26/2014 1:25:47 PM PDT · 435 of 1,307
    D-fendr to Iscool; Forty_Seven
    It says with scripture, the man of God may be complete; equipped...That means; scripture + nothing, ALONE...You do not have to say 'alone' to know it clearly means alone..

    It says it is profitable/useful for..

    Flour is useful for a perfect cake; flour alone does not make a cake. Your interpretation adds "alone" where it does not exist.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/26/2014 1:10:54 PM PDT · 433 of 1,307
    D-fendr to Iscool; FourtySeven
    Why doesn't the Holy Spirit just jump into someones mind when they want to speak of things of God???

    Actually, that's part of the requirement for the theory of sola scriptura.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    06/26/2014 12:19:31 PM PDT · 413 of 1,307
    D-fendr to metmom

    I’ll give it a quick go:

    >>”WHY is sola Scriptura not valid? “

    Scripture *alone* doesn’t exist in reality. E.g., in your case, you’re reading it and getting some meaning from it, different meaning than someone else might. So it’s never really scripture alone.

    Secondly, it fails it’s own test. If you mean by sola scriptura that “scripture alone is entirely sufficient for all doctrine...” that doctrine is not in scripture. So the doctrine is self-contradicting.

    Thirdly in fails in practice to result in the most basic requirement of “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

    In summary, sola scriptura is a concept, not a reality; it is unscriptural and internally contradictory and it fails in practice.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/26/2014 8:16:20 AM PDT · 239 of 253
    D-fendr to FourtySeven
    Thanks for your reply.

    “Daniel’s opinion of what Scripture says… or whoever…

    Yep, that's the part some wish mightily to avoid. There is a always a reader involved, an interpreter, an authority determining doctrine.

    Ever-true to the nom de guerre Protestant, some constantly protest the Church's authority, and protest and protest and protest… But what is their alternative authority? Well, protest protest protest protest...

    And round it goes.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/26/2014 7:57:54 AM PDT · 238 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212

    Graphics and call in the posse. I’m flattered.

    However, flailing and gnashing aside, the question still remains unanswered. We could infer that it’s too difficult to answer. But it’s a very simple and you were given a multiple choice selection if needed - so, probably not that.

    We could infer a double standard in place - one gets to attack another’s position on an issue but does not have to explain or defend their own.

    We could also infer an inability to defend a position resulting in a strong desire to leave the field.

    If so, adios and pax tecum.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/25/2014 9:33:01 PM PDT · 233 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212; FourtySeven

    Perhaps it will be helpful to list all possible alternatives to the Church determining Christian doctrines.

    I started with the alternative of daniel1212, so it will be first of the possibilities:

    1) daniel1212
    2) Each and every individual, daniel1212 inclusive
    3) The 1646 Westminster Assembly, Church of England (Westminster Confession)
    4) Theologians led by Jakob Andreae and Martin Chemnitz (Lutheran Concordia)
    5) Philadelphia Baptist Association (Baptist Confession)
    6) Jacobus Arminius, Synod of Dort, et al.
    7) Huldrych Zwingli and followers
    8) Oneness Pentecostal movement, 1914 and onward
    9) Cyrus Scofield, John Nelson Darby and other Dispensationalists
    10) Some other authority not listed above
    11) None of the above, no Christian Doctrine needed or necessary

    I think this list is complete, with the caveats of 10) and 11), I think it certainly includes the more popular alternatives. You’re, of course, free to amend the list.

    Which do you offer or pick as you alternative?

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/25/2014 8:46:40 AM PDT · 232 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212

    Boy, that’s a lot of words not to include a specific answer.

    I just see more complaints of the same type.

    You don’t agree with the authority of the Church, especially in establishing doctrine. Got it.

    Your alternative is… daniel12? Do you determine what is Christian doctrine, what it is and on what basis it is determined?

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/24/2014 10:58:31 PM PDT · 230 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212

    Perhaps you don’t hold daniel1212 as the authority, maybe it’s Zwingli, or Calvin or Westminster..?

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/24/2014 10:51:54 PM PDT · 229 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212
    But Rome reasons that since she holds her doctrine to be of God as Scripture is, as both are only what she autocratically says they are and mean, then church doctrine is the supreme law, and there simply cannot be any contradiction, if she does say so herself.

    Or, your alternative is? "daniel12 holds his doctrine... if he does say so himself.."

    You offer a very fragile individual internet persona as authority.

  • Pope Francis, Chagall And Asher Lev

    06/18/2014 12:08:21 AM PDT · 9 of 12
    D-fendr to Mrs. Don-o

    Thanks for posting this. I had a similar experience with “My Name is Asher Lev”. Recommend it to all.

    “The Promise” also.

    His History of the Jews is excellent too.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/17/2014 11:39:04 PM PDT · 221 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212

    Game, set, match.

    Your rebuttal fails miserably.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/17/2014 8:57:32 PM PDT · 218 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212; FourtySeven
    And it is not subjective feelings that determine what is real.

    This is an over-simplification that results in a falsehood. "Feelings" is a loaded term. We experience reality, as a subject, there is therefore a subjective component to reality, to what is real, to what is true.

    When we realize that 2+2=4, we - subjectively - experience the truth of the statement. Otherwise it is just numbers. We can memorize the formula, be told that it is "true," but we do not fully know it is true without direct personal experience: taking two of something, putting it with two more and having four. It is no longer numbers and truth accepted, but reality directly experienced.

    If I may assume to know what FourtySeven is expressing: It is one thing to accept another's view of Christ as God and Saviour; it is quite another to experience it directly - subjectively.

    The second is the more true, more real, more firmly known.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/17/2014 5:49:37 PM PDT · 214 of 253
    D-fendr to Mrs. Don-o

    Excellent post.

    I may bookmark it and use just a link for replies in the future.

    :)

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/17/2014 12:01:40 PM PDT · 205 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212; FourtySeven
    Yes, insofar as it is warranted by the evidence, with a heart for Truth, as in Scripture.

    The evidence as determined by daniel1212, what scripture says according to daniel1212.

    This is all you've offered; I think it must be all you can offer. Is it?:

    The evidence according to daniel1212, what scripture says according to daniel1212 with "the basis for assurance of truth" an internet persona called daniel1212.

    No wonder Christ did not teach this: "You are the authority and basis of truth" - or each individual in the unscriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

    Contra this is the Church. Our basis for our assurance of truth is Christ, the head of His Church, from Him and through His Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

    For me, the choice is easy; and I'm sorry, but you lose your own challenge, to choose otherwise would go against both Holy Scripture and reason.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/16/2014 10:58:44 PM PDT · 175 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212
    so that Scripture must say says what I say it says, and then calling others to assent to that, which is what Rome does

    Aren't you, likewise, calling others to assent to what you say Scripture says?

    If not, what is your point - and why should we bother listening to you?

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/16/2014 9:49:27 PM PDT · 452 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    Maybe this is part of our differences.

    We don’t believe we are in this alone; certainly not in it alone with books or texts. We are a teaching Church, in all the forms that teaching may take. We have spiritual directors. Each individual is different, each is, well, individual.

    Some people are experiential, more internal, some or outward, compassionate or externally focused, some are intellectual, some are not. We have a wide variety of practices and teaching developed over many centuries.

    de Montfort may be right for one, wrong for another. Aquinas may be perfect for one, useless for another. St. Francis of Assisi may open one heart to God; St. Augustine another.

    No one is advised to go it alone, but to seek others in community and in individual spiritual direction, all with the same fundamental belief: seek and you shall find.

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/16/2014 9:39:21 PM PDT · 451 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    Take it or leave it, pretty much. If de Montfort leads you some conclusion that is contrary to dogma, definitely leave it, or seek a teacher to get you back on the right track.

    If he leads you to Christ, then definitely take it.

    de Montfort is not dogma.

    Same with deSales, Francis Xavier, Ignatius of Loyola, St. John of the Cross, St. Augustine, St. Teresa, St. Catherine, et. al.

    Perhaps there is some misunderstanding when some think any Catholic writer speaks for the Church and what they say or write is dogma however the reader may understand what they said or wrote.

    Not true.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/16/2014 7:02:39 PM PDT · 167 of 253
    D-fendr to FourtySeven; daniel1212
    Thanks very much for your post:

    as if the Bible gets up off the table, talks to you in an audible voice, and tells you, “No you’re reading me wrong. This is how I should be read...”?

    Well put. Sola scriptura - scripture alone - does not exist in reality, ever.

    It is also unscriptural and as dogma it is self-contradictory. So, it is completely expected that it should also fail in practice to result in the most basic requirement for Christ's Church: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

    Perhaps we can infer that this is why our Lord did not teach or establish the doctrine of sola scriptura for His Church.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/16/2014 6:50:40 PM PDT · 165 of 253
    D-fendr to Mrs. Don-o; daniel1212; FourtySeven
    Thanks for your post. I keep waiting for some Baptist or Presbyterian or whatever to say: "This is our statement of principles, our Confession.. Here is our core beliefs, that which we hold to be absolutely true; however, we could be wrong."

    Ain't gonna happen, so these infallibility attacks are at best, attempts to apply double standards.

    Obviously if someone or some theology claims truth - but they could be wrong, we can take their claim as self-consciously weak, most definitely not "assured." Hence, my question back to daniel1212. I think it fair to characterize his response is not completely assured, and therefore failing his own challenge.

    So, now that we have, apparently, received daniel1212's best answer to the question "What is the basis for your assurance of truth?" I think it time to give a simple Catholic reply:
    Our basis for our assurance of truth is Christ, the head of his Church, from Him and through His Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/16/2014 6:26:03 PM PDT · 162 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212
    Seriously? I asked questions , and even without giving my answers, then the evasive response you give is to charge me with claiming infallibility

    There are two reasons to ask you whether you were infallible:

    1) Your argument was wrapped up in another argument of infallibility; so it's obvious to ask if you claim it; and,

    2) If you are not claiming infallibility - i.e., you could be wrong, then how is this "assurance" in your choice of words?

    So it is entirely in context with the debate.

    Roman logic means whoever makes a truth claim must be claiming infallibility..

    Well, yes, it is a claim to truth isn't it? And particularly when the truth claim is "the basis for your assurance of truth," the caveat "but this could be error" is beyond weak, it negates the argument.

    So, your objection seems to me to be that I'm requiring you to answer your own question and, at the least, in a better fashion than whatever you claim to be arguing against.

    I think if a debater challenges, they most certainly are not immune from being given the same challenge.

    How well they meet their own challenge is not only fair and revealing, but is required to avoid descending into a double standard.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/16/2014 10:05:49 AM PDT · 115 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212
    If a person makes a claim

    I'm assuming you claim to have the correct answer to your own question: "What is the basis for your assurance of truth?"

    Or at least what you think the correct answer is.

    The answer you've given thus far reduces to: their basis for assurance should be an internet persona called daniel1212.

    If this is what your view of the correct answer is, it would be difficult not to propose an answer that would be an improvement. I'll be happy to, but, first, to clarify, is this your best attempt at the correct answer? Is this the one to beat?

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/16/2014 7:43:03 AM PDT · 111 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212
    Is this an infallible statement from daniel1212:

    assurance of Truth must be to substantiation from a wholly Divinely inspired source of Truth.

    Substantiated according to whom? Would that be the same daniel1212?

    Seems the point is still: their basis for assurance should be an internet persona called daniel1212.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/15/2014 11:53:51 PM PDT · 102 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212
    But i am not the one claiming assured infallibility.

    Sure you are. Or are you saying you could be wrong?

    Then what is your point?

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/15/2014 11:52:26 AM PDT · 449 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    Last post should have typed:

    This is ineffable, but an attempt to explain what for *some is* “to Jesus through Mary.”

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/15/2014 11:50:34 AM PDT · 448 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    I could try summarize a great deal of my thinking:

    Who Christ is, God in history, “in person” if you will, is in a huge part what our religion is. Fully realizing this - not just intellectually - is a spiritual exercise, and that is putting it far too mildly.

    Who God is, who we are and our relationship to God is a way of encapsulating the whole of religion.

    All three of these: God, man, relationship, are there in Christ, in His incarnation. One very good way - I think essential for me - is realize (make real) Christ, the Incarnate Word. And a key way to do this is relate to oneself that God had a mother. In this way we, as humans, who also have a mother...

    This is ineffable, but an attempt to explain what for is to Jesus through Mary.

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/15/2014 11:43:39 AM PDT · 447 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    I should have summarized, in answer to your question, that I think the article has the balance; if anyone takes part without the other, that would be an unbalance.

    As for DeMontfort, I think one can take him to a quite unbalanced place; and, reading him one, usually, needs a guide. I think this one helps:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-s

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/15/2014 11:17:09 AM PDT · 445 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    I think one can go too far either way:

    Separate God from His human-ness in the Incarnation or make the human God.

    In the Incarnation, God had a mother. God incarnate is what Christ is and what Christianity is about. He suffered as we do. We are united to, in communion with God, His body, in the body of Christ. This is the Church with Christ as the head.

    This is all key to the dogma of Christianity. God choose to do this through Mary, with Mary. IF you get Mary wrong, you get Christ wrong, you get the Most Holy Trinity Wrong; you embrace some form of heresy; we see this today often.

    Also, we have different definitions of “worship.” This is a constant area of argument. Latria is our word for the honor due to God alone. Mary is not God. One can honor humans, dulia, but it is fundamentally different in kind.

    The Mass is our highest form of worship; in my opinion a lot of the problems occurred with those who left the Church and the mass. This “worship” was lost and in its place pretty much everything else became confused for worship.

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/15/2014 10:31:51 AM PDT · 443 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    Thanks for your reply.

    The previous topic was Mary in Holy Scripture and I think the Incarnation qualifies as a fair amount of Mary in Holy Scripture. Mary is absolutely part of and necessary for the Incarnation. The Word become flesh has a mother. Catholics don’t redefine or relabel this, we accept is as fact. I think others try not to do so.

    As far as doctrines and what is unscriptural, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unscriptural, worse it fails its own test and so is internally contradicting.

    Sola scriptura is, in my view, a necessary evil once one leaves the Church and takes the authority of the Church upon themselves.

    But our disagreement over this doctrine is going to lead to constant disagreement. It’s closely wedded to authority and what the “Church” is. We will not see much agreement here.

  • Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

    06/15/2014 8:48:36 AM PDT · 26 of 253
    D-fendr to daniel1212

    Obviously, their basis for assurance should be the an internet persona called daniel1212.

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/14/2014 11:06:28 PM PDT · 441 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    Do you not believe in the Incarnation?

    >>”But Mary’s is mentioned briefly regarding the birth of the Son of Man”

    You don’t believe Mary’s son, Jesus, is God?

    Perhaps we have greater differences than I thought.

    Do you believe the Word became flesh means God became incarnate? That Jesus is God, the Word become flesh, born of a woman?

    Are you Christian or some other religion?

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/14/2014 10:01:13 AM PDT · 439 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    Thanks, and yes I said Incarnation.

    You said: The bible doesn’t talk about Mary.

    I replied: Well, other than that minor part about the Incarnation.

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/11/2014 9:05:11 PM PDT · 437 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster

    Sorry, don’t understand: “Incarnation you day”?

  • Brothers of Jesus: Biblical Arguments for Mary’s Virginity

    06/10/2014 9:23:49 PM PDT · 435 of 452
    D-fendr to DungeonMaster
    The bible doesn’t talk about Mary.

    Well, other than that minor part about the Incarnation.

  • Paul Never Quoted Jesus?

    06/07/2014 9:24:33 PM PDT · 45 of 73
    D-fendr to Iscool

    How is He re-affirming scripture that has not yet been written?

  • Paul Never Quoted Jesus?

    06/07/2014 9:21:34 PM PDT · 44 of 73
    D-fendr to Iscool
    Jesus was re-affirming what he said a slightly different way, in the NT

    So He *was* quoting, re-affirming, New Testament scripture?

    Isn't this what you're interpreting from: "as the scripture hath said"? The New Testament scripture?