Search results

The first Christians (if you define "Christian" as a believer in Christ) were called "Nazarenes" and "followers of the Way", not "Catholic". If anything, had you went back in time, they would have appeared as Jews (in appearance and in manner). Quite different from what we have today with any...

I believe it teaches a spritual lesson (the guilt and realization of sin). That is why nakedness was, as you put it, "the medium".

interesting... may have to check it out.

Well, I understood what was said differently. I thought he was saying that giving (not tithing) had a weightier significance to it (giving of the heart, not just because you have to). Maybe I read wrong or misunderstood him, but regardless, my point is clear from my post. And I know...

It is like the same principle here: John 16:2 They thought they were doing what they were doing (walking in unbelief) because it was right and that the believers were heretics. This they did by denying that they need Christ as their righteousness unto eternal life, and making the law their...

Actually, I can read what is written well and would like to quote myself: I never said he commanded anything. The scripture I quoted (2 Cor 9:7) says not to give out of necessity. Please read over what I said again...

True. This principle is discussed in 2 Cor 9:7. It did have a specific context (giving to the needs of the Jerusalem congregation, whom Paul collected money for), but if your congregation needs money, then you ought to give if it is put on your heart. A requirement of any specific tithe (a...

And yet you continue to argue off of the premise of error. There is no problem with the sabbath (Psalm 19:7-11). Your "one day at a time" argument is getting old and centers around your opinion and/or feelings rather than the truth (John 17:17). Simply put, the sabbath does not mean you...

Care to point out my error? And it's not about who's way we believe. It's about what is right (whether or not you or me are correct).

This post is filled with error, some of which I have refuted on another page. But without going into much detail, I want to point out three apparent errors in your post that really nullify your assertions about what you said being "words from God". (1) There was a point being made in...

I'm not familiar with Catholic teaching on this issue, but wouldn't he be speaking spiritually or metaphorically anyway? Because a "presence" in the eucharist would not be his literal flesh and blood anyway. There's only so much he could give out if it were...

It all started when I was arguing with two of my SDA friends about the sabbath...

Assuming denying the trinity is this "major heresy" your church makes it out to be (and in my case, assuming the trinity is even true at all).

thats it. i'm done. now you are spouting pure nonsense and don't know what plural intensive means. it's like putting a huge amount of emphasis on a word. i truly can't deal with this anymore. now you're just saying stuff to stay alive in this debate.

"Impersonal" then, if that's suits you. You are still rewriting the dictionary. It does not talk say anything about people doing works. But refers to the works themselves.

I would say "no" it isn't truth , but from his perspsective, it does not matter. This is slippery slope, a named logical fallacy and therefore irrelevant as an argument. No one knows all truth. That doesn't mean one can't be saved. You will probably appeal to that silly argument of not...

This still doesn't mean you aren't ignoring my points, which are valid. And still, your understanding of what is something explicit is actually saying is in question too...

Now you are rewriting this dictionary. This definition does not say anything about special possessions that do his work. It says works or special possessions (which are objects). And I think you have a warped view of what "plural intensive" means... And ultimately I don't even know why you...