[SoothingDave]

Thanks (again) for your thoughts, your words and your specifications on the matter of what constitutes a man. Nonetheless, I remain willing to learn from His.

So you're not open to an exchange of thought. You take one, unrelated passage, and decide against all of historical Christianity that Jesus was not "born" of woman.

You can't explain what that means, and you refuse to engage questions about the implications for the Redpemption.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

As opposed to your dictum that whatever the Church teaches is false.

Why don't you make a serious effort to tell the truth? If you did I might pay attention to what you say.

[OLD REGGIE]

The last time I checked, Peter denied being a disciple of Jesus three times, right?

Why do you insist on displaying your ignorance? Do you know what "A Pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals" means? Do you recognize that Peter's denials don't meet that standard?

Jimmy Swaggert and Jimmy Baker were perfect in all ways, right? (Maybe you became a fundamentalist after that incident, if you need, which you do, more information, just ask)

Do you have a purpose behind this inanity?

Was Honorius preaching from the "Chair of Peter?"

Is the 6th Ecumenical Council recognized by the RCC?

Did this council find Honorius guilty of heresy?

Do you know what heresy is?

Do your homework before you go running off at the mouth.

[newgeezer]

So you're not open to an exchange of thought.

I've seen and read what you've written about the matter. Do let me know if and when you decide to back up your thoughts with Scripture references.

Absent those, we might as well debate about how many angels would fit on the head of a pin.