Recent content by Churchmouse

I've heard this argument many times, but I'm familiar enough to know that Kaddish is a prayer acknowledging the sovereignty of God and not a prayer for the soul in an alleged "purgatory." Most would say it is a prayer of remembrance because the worst thing is to be forgotten. The reason why they...

Of course! You can demean it all you want by calling it "Bible Thumping", but to overlook Christ's command to spread the gospel is just plain ignorance. Jesus was pretty adept citing the OT when correcting those who needed correcting, I guess you would consider Him a "Bible Thumper" as well...

1. Well, what is the gospel? It is what Christ asked his disciples to spread to the world. Hence, Christ's plain words isn't a matter of figuring out. The gospel is the "good news" of Christ. We need no church to see what is plain. 2. The great commission was given to His disciples. Hence...

On the claim that Jerome usage of the word "Scripture" denotes his "acceptance" of these books as canonical, nothing could be farther from the truth. These books were never accepted by Jerome as inspired (<--key word) and there are others, even in Trent, who held to Jerome's position and denied...

Hi, To do so would be a complete misunderstanding of evangelization. If a Protestant (and I use this word in its conservative sense) were to practice his/her faith, this would mean that evangelization (not "proselytize") would be central to his/her faith. It comes with the territory, per se...

I can trust them because, first, the OT books were entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:2) and handed down to us. Secondly, the Gospels were handed down from the very beginning and accepted by the churches. Lastly, the other books have the attributes for canonicity, the "divine qualities) but here's...

Of course God's omniscient! That's apples and oranges. Rather, when you say that the church in Rome is the one that Christ instituted, your statement cannot be trusted because, as you stated, you're fallible. You can't make the claims that you've been making for Rome's prominence because you're...

What you stated in your prior response has absolutely nothing to do with church infallibility; rather it was on the fate of the old covenant people. So why state it? You jumped from a lesson on Sheol to church infallibility. That's a huge leap, especially since one doesn't have anything to do...

I agree! But what does this have to do with the church being infallible???

Your answer to my first question is that you are fallible. Your answer to my second question contradicts your first answer by stating that Jesus cannot lie (which he can't) but assuming that your fallible interpretation is the correct one. Again, you haven't been able to answer the question...

Here is what you're not getting. Jesus isn't "lying" when He says what He says about the gates of hell not prevailing (Matthew 16:18-19), but you made a very fallible assent to Rome's interpretation of the verse. Yet, one only needs to read the passage to know that it has nothing to do with...

Wow! You truly aren't getting this at all. Your answer to number 1 is contracted by your answer to number 2. In other words, yes, you are fallible, therefore your understanding of number 2 is a fallible assertion. Then you complicate it by your very fallible answer to number 3 which is, once...

How, you ask, since I'm fallible (as are you), can I prove that my personal understanding of the written word is the correct one and others are wrong? That, sir, would be a loaded question since I don't make the claim that "...the others are all wrong" (aka, a straw man). As opposed to your...

LOL! What makes your answer laughable is that I keep asking you "HOW do you know if you, being a fallible man, can know with infallible certainty that Rome is truly infallible" and you just keep repeating the same assertion you can never prove. You say you have "a living infallible (on faith and...

Elijah and Enoch were and the Scriptures attest to it. Mary is just an "assumption" created by some in the Catholic church (pun intended).