Search results

Wrong. Any believer can baptize another. There is no need for an apostle to do it… and good luck finding an apostle these days anyway. Catholic priests certainly don’t qualify.

I agree with your summary statement. A similar "exousia" was the source of Samson's strength, Solomon's wisdom, and David's prowess in battle. However, Judas was a special case because he was born for a specific purpose: to betray Jesus. That doesn't preclude God working through him as He worked...

Your criticism of the Critical text is actually unfounded here. The TR was based on a mere handful of late manuscripts... even though the majority of manuscripts discovered since are consistent with them. There was no such thing as the 'majority text' in the 1500's.

Your post betrays a rather hypocritical approach to signs and wonders. You assert that the longer ending of Mark is original, but claim that 1 Corinthians 13:10 refers to the completed canon of Scripture. The text states that God wrought special miracles... nowhere in Scripture is it hinted...

That's relatively easy to determine. You're at (about) 0 degrees of longitude, and between 55 and 60 degrees North, so the opposite would be 180 degrees West (or East; they're the same) and 55-60 degrees South. There is no continent; it's the open ocean SE of New Zealand. :)

There is nothing in Scripture about water running over the forehead. There is nothing in Scripture about a "proper minister of baptism". Again, your understanding is clouded by your Catholic dogma.

Another nonsensical question. Moving on....

Respectfully, you are asking questions that would not need to be asked if you read the passage more carefully. The text states that Melchizedek is without father, mother, descent, etc. It doesn't say those things about Jesus. The punctuation and structure are important; only the last statement...

This isn't directed at you, Roughsoul, but unfortunately, the thread title and OP are poorly worded. The words "accompanied by" fit the context far better, and frame the conversation much more sensibly, than "equipped with". That said, we can never know what "could be"... in this case or in any...

I see your attempt to twist my words. I'm not playing your ridiculous game. Get some integrity.

As is common, you far overstate your position and in so doing, make a false statement. You are welcome to believe in the pre-tribulation return, but it most certainly is NOT a fundamental biblical doctrine. A fundamental doctrine is one that distinguishes a Christian from a non-Christian, a...

Do a little more homework on this statement. He only included it in his third edition. "Revisors"? That seems rather loaded. Perhaps you are trying to start an argument rather than have a discussion.

Blah blah blah. Nothing in Scripture supports your earlier assertions.

I am not obligated to answer ridiculous questions that have no relationship to the discussion. Frankly, I'm not obligated to answer questions at all, but I choose to do so.

Ignorance of basic English usage diminishes your credibility. However, you are free to look stupid if you choose.

Jesus said, "Let your yes be yes," not "Let you're yes be yes." It is an absolute fact of English grammar that "your" and "you're" are different words.

Bullhockey! Catholic dogma has clouded your understanding. There is ONE and only ONE High Priest, Jesus Christ. Nothing in Scripture even hints that He shares this office with mere humans. Believers in Him are all priests on an equal footing with each other. There is no such thing as "low...

When you learn how to read without making ridiculous leaps of misinterpretation, you should read the Bible.

Welcome, Mary! Just an FYI... you can see the date a post was made in the upper left corner. While you are welcome to respond to old posts, it is likely that the person to whom you are responding won't see it if it's more than a year old. :)

You are welcome to discuss your concerns about what is tolerated on this site with a Moderator or the Owner.