Search results

The Holy Bible does indeed reveal a transition in the full comprehension of God as Father. However, it is a transition with respect to intimacy, rather than a lack of revelation, a lack of realisation, or a lack of understanding. Nor is the difference actually between Old and New Testaments...

Once again we seem to owe MoreCoffee a vote of thanks for clarifying (perhaps unwittingly) an important issue for us. In his attempt to equate the Yahweh (Jehovah) of the Old Testament with the Yeshua (Jesus) of the New, he presented us with some important Scripture. He first quoted Isaiah...

In Post #41 on Page 5, Ackbach said: Unfortunately, that approach is itself presupposition, based on subjectivity. How can Ackbach know for sure that it was “the Holy Spirit” that convinced him that the Bible is true? How can Ackbach prove that if an atheist (a psychologist for example)...

Psalm 110:1: Hebrews 1:13: If the [Yahweh, Jehovah] and [God] above are correct, then MoreCoffee's [Jehovah] in his reproduction of Philippians 2:11 (and all will openly proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord [Jehovah], to the glory of God the Father) must be incorrect. Is that not so? Pedrito...

In Post #28 on Page 3, Lämmchen said: If that is indeed true, then why do different churches hold conflicting views on what is actually required “for our salvation”? That is not a trivial question. A person’s salvation is the most important issue they can ever face. I therefore invite...

In Post #14 on Page 2, Josiah presented: And in Post #15 on the same page (the very next post), he repeated those questions, and added (whatever it is supposed to mean): Note the individual questions (below) – questions asked by someone who refers to church councils for authority regarding...

… Continued In my former post (Post #12 on Page 2) I offered: ============================================================================================== Now let’s look at the verse underlined by MoreCoffee in the second set of verses he gave from that translation (New World Translation –...

MoreCoffee in Post #4 on Page 1: That was after he asked the following: “What do you think is the best reply to this statement? The Bible says: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:4) Therefore...

An example follows of what happens when groups of Christians (churches) ignore the wonderful message God has presented to us – the message embedded in the Bible – totally consistent, nothing to be explained away – devastatingly simple – that takes away fear...

In reply to my observations in Post #12 on Page 1: Lämmchen in Post #13 on Page 1, stated: Did the Reader catch that? “Those people were not influenced by traditions.” Of course not. Those people created them. “But rather the traditions reinforced what scripture flatly stated.” If the...

In Post #10 on Page 1, MoreCoffe’s stated: Well, I would beg to differ on that. I submit instead that God's Holy and Inspired Revelation in its completeness ("the whole counsel of God", Old and New Testaments combined), when every part is considered in its correct context, is where truth...

… Continued God has proven His existence, and His interest in mankind, by means of incredibly strong internal evidence within the book we know as the Bible. He has presented a wonderful message to us – totally consistent, nothing to be explained away – devastatingly simple – that takes away...

In Post 267 on Page 27, Josiah offered the oft-repeated: That seemed to be in support of the oft-stated (Lämmchen in Post # 266 on Page 27): Well, in another forum some time ago (a forum which I believe it would be improper for me to name), a Greek scholar showed convincingly that the grammar...

MoreCoffe's statement in Post #18 on Page 2, is interesting. It was given in response to my request for enlightenment regarding the specific criterion or criteria MoreCoffee employs to evaluate papal etc, statements with accuracy – and thereby decide whether any particular statement made by a...

MoreCoffe Post #6 on Page 1, Me Post #7 on Page 1, MoreCoffee Post #10 on Page 1, Me Post #13 on Page 2, MoreCoffee Post #14 on Page 2 [lowlighting added]: So, I repeat (with some modifications for clarity), with respect to a statement relating to "religious doctrine and morals": on what...

In the light of MoreCoffe’s Posts #6 and #10 on Page 1, and my intervening Post #7: I just have to ask MoreCofee, on what specific criterion or criteria does he decide whether a decree made by the Pope (for instance) is to be given credence, or is to be taken with a grain of salt? I don't...

Lämmchen's Post #220 on Page 22: Than how come they say different things? How come they betray developing theology in line with other sources of church history?

MoreCoffe made an interesting statement in Post #6 on Page 1: Just what are we supposed to believe, then? And when? And on what basis?

In Post #23 on Page 4, MoreCoffee said (regarding the council held at Nicea and dated at 325AD): Why should that be so? If Catholic doctrine and practice is based on “apostolic tradition” as we are told, then all church doctrines and practices would naturally have been settled once and for...

In Post #23 on Page 4, MoreCoffee said: In 325AD the “church” had yet to add a third personality to the Christian God. The Christian God consisted only of “God the Father” and “God the Son” (to use common parlance) at that stage. The “Nicene Creed”, was so named so as to trick people (us)...