Search results

I'm not interested in the opinions of men. Mary is not a perpetual virgin. Such a notion is foolish and contrary to all common sense, as well as contrary to biblical truth.

I'm not going to explain all the errors of Catholicism. You can research the matter for yourself... and you won't see the light until you do so anyway. Just know this: if you continue to promote Catholic errors on this site, you will be reported, and banned. Quickly.

Mary ceased to be a virgin when Joseph had relations with her, following Jesus' birth. Matthew 1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. The implication is crystal-clear. Mary was no longer a virgin.

Are you a Catholic? It certainly sounds like it. Your assertions are in line with Catholic heresies.

Repeating yourself ad nauseam does not make you correct.

Wrong; in Scripture there are three distinct orders: that of Melchizedek, that of Aaron, and that of the believer. Scripture knows nothing of "high" and "low" classes. There was one high priest, beginning with Aaron, but that does not make the others "low priests".

Dating between Christians should indeed have strict physical-intimacy limitations. We don't live by the world's standards. I think we're on the same page. :)

This is another Catholic error.

What you call “ specious”, I call “strict adherence to Scripture”.

The Bible says nothing about Mary being a virgin forever. It strongly implies that she was not. In John 3, Jesus speaks directly of being "born again" but says nothing to Nicodemus about baptism. "Born of water" is natural childbirth.

Are you asserting (inadvertently perhaps) that all three are essentially the same thing? I would have to disagree. God Himself is Truth, and is therefore the Arbiter of truth. I'm not sure what you mean by "rule of faith" so I won't speculate on the correct answer. The source of faith and...

Given that you started the thread, are you just tooting your own horn? Scripture speaks to that too. ;)

Nowhere in Acts are these seven identified with the title, "Deacon". Nowhere in Scripture are "deacons" assigned the ministry of serving tables. The cited text does not support your point. Nowhere in Scripture are pastors identified as elders, or vice versa. Leaps of speculation are not...

Muster up some courage and ask her out for a very simple date... during which you make a point of asking whatever questions you need to assess her spiritual condition. If she is not saved, go no further. If she is, proceed with caution, being careful to note whether there is mutual interest.

Welcome to CC! Sorry you've been through this. What you describe likely resulted in some emotional and even spiritual wounds from which you need healing. Take some time with a competent pastor or mature believer who can help you process the junk. If you don't do so, you will carry the wounds...

Welcome to CC, and... I disagree completely... and my understanding is based on both Scripture and experience in the world. Unless you are advocating arranged marriages (which are quite unrealistic for most Western adults) I suspect you won't find anyone today who will be willing to marry...

Scripture does not specify that deacons are to attend to the "temporal affairs". Deacons are servants; that's what the word means. Elders are also, by extension, servants, but their term encompasses leadership. Also, in Scripture, pastors are never identified as elders.

From where in Scripture do you get this idea?

Flatly, no. However, though a plurality of leaders makes abuse of leadership less likely, but it certainly does not eliminate the possibility. I've seen extremely unhealthy churches and organizations that have a plurality.

It might be helpful to provide dictionary definitions of the two terms rather than simply saying what they mean according to some web site. Words have objective meanings, based on actual usage by speakers/writers of that language. Meanings can change over time, and staying relevant requires...