Speak lovingly of Mary

[NoDoubt]

Theotokos, save us.

She can't. Sorry

 

[WarriorAngel]

What makes you think she was shocked at all?
It says Gabriel's greeting troubled her.
Gabriel said thou shalt conceive, not you & your husband will have a son.
What you say she knew is total speculation & your way of "denying to read it as is".

'I know not man...'
Even though she was betrothed??
I am sure she didnt need to speculate on whom she would conceive with if she was betrothed with that particular intent in mind.


During her betrothal she says she knows NOT man...
Which means she did NOT ever intend to know man.

Otherwise it sounds really weird to say you cannot conceive a child during your engagement with a wedding looming over your head - if you absolutely intend to procreate with your husband.

Luke 1
30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive [future tense] in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [also future tense to match his future tense explanation that she would sometime in the future conceive a Son] 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Fool Satan? Please.. God does not need to fool anyone.. He is God

Evidently God wanted to.
Are you saying you can give counsel to the mind of God?

See scriptures asked who can give Him counsel...which means - who can advise God on how and what He should or must do.

YOU are saying He doesnt need to fulfill His plan the way He did...
However; scriptures give entire evidences of disguising everything about the Lord so as to conceal the future Passion.

IF satan knew what Jesus was up to - he would not invoked His passion to be fulfilled.

Who is the father of hatred?
Of revenge?
Of anger?
Of exacting judgement undue them?

So, Jesus laid down His life, but He did so thru the catalyst of satan...who [thru the beauty of God's plan] thwarted his own plan to mislead and forever seperate mankind from God.

That was his intent in the garden of Paradise.
Which is why the OT was NOT revealed until after the fulfilment of Christ's Passion, death and resurrection.

yes, it says she was not knowing, not she had not known. it demonstrates an ongoing condition.

Not really. For Mary's calling was to give birth to Christ.. Not to remain a PV

I repeat again..
Jesus had said in the OT to man - 'WHERE the Lord thy God enters - NO MAN shall enter in by.'

IF everything else 'came to light' that was shrouded behind a veil in the OT so we could understand AFTER the Resurrection - why do you not understand this is also true of the passage regarding the GATE.

Mary is the Gate to Heaven...where Christ passed thru and NO man shall pass thru where He has entered.

HE was NOT referring to an iron gate that rusts.
Honestly - i tell you again - HE was referring to His Mother.

She is the Gate to Heaven, because Jesus entered into humanity THRU her and so shall we now be able to be with Him.

But you just wrote words to say that.
Didja speak em first?
Just kidding with you, but Jesus said
"it is Written" too.

(what happened to our laz discussion lion?
I lost sleep over that!! It was my pleasure
though. I think Rick agrees with your part.
TOLD ya no one would buy my idea)

Jesus also said 'You have heard..'
Jesus also said...
'The Seat of Moses...'

No where - no where does a single passage explain the term 'seat of Moses'...
Until Jesus speaks about a commonly KNOWN tradition!


AND not just any tradition - but one that HE asserts has power.

For Jesus did NOT say - "Well since i am here - you don't need the seat of Moses - since I am the One ..."
No - He reasserted the power and authroity that where the earthly authority was laid was ON THE SEAT OF MOSES...

Tradition has as much power and truth as the written - and without Tradition you cannot CANNOT CANNOT have the written.
And without the written you cannot understand how Tradition came about...

YOU cannot CANNOT CANNOT have one without the other.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

During her betrothal she says she knows NOT man...
Which means she did NOT ever intend to know man.

No.

I'm not married. That doesn't mean it is a dogmatic fact of the highest importance and certainty that I am a PERPETUAL bachelor, lol....

I hope you see the baselessness of your argument, my good and long respected friend....




.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Guess you don't know then.

You are correct - i surely do not.

For i know James believed in Jesus - without 'having knowledge' of everything before he received the Holy Spirit to understand it.

If he didn't have faith - as asserted - then he would not have been an Apostle...and followed Christ through out His ministry.

However; i need to know if this is the person with whom she was referring.

Now - are you suggesting just because they didnt yet conceive the Holy Spirit - that they didn't have faith?

....think about it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/size]

No.

I'm not married. That doesn't mean it is a dogmatic fact of the highest importance and certainty that I am a PERPETUAL bachelor, lol....

I hope you see the baselessness of your argument, my good and long respected friend....




.

Ok, lets get this straight...and LET'S PRETEND you are a woman and your name is Josie.

IF an angel comes to you while you are engaged to be married [which is the closest concept we have for be being betrothed] with your fiance - and they tell you [we shall skip the greeting because it explains the magnitude of Mary's 'pre saved'] ...
Anyway, the angel says to you 'Josie, You shall conceive a Son and name him Mark...'

NOW - wouldn't you assume the angel was referring to the consumated relationship with your spouse after the nuptials??

And please - be honest.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No.

I'm not married. That doesn't mean it is a dogmatic fact of the highest importance and certainty that I am a PERPETUAL bachelor, lol....

I hope you see the baselessness of your argument, my good and long respected friend....

Ok, lets get this straight...and LET'S PRETEND you are a woman and your name is Josie.

IF an angel comes to you while you are engaged to be married [which is the closest concept we have for be being betrothed] with your fiance - and they tell you [we shall skip the greeting because it explains the magnitude of Mary's 'pre saved'] ...
Anyway, the angel says to you 'Josie, You shall conceive a Son and name him Mark...'

NOW - wouldn't you assume the angel was referring to the consumated relationship with your spouse after the nuptials??

And please - be honest.

When I said that I AM single, that is a factual statement.
It does NOT mean that it is a dogmatic FACT that I am a PERPETUAL bachelor.
What part of that don't you understand, my good and respected friend?




Now, how does this address the singular issue of how we KNOW, how we dogmaticatically confirm to the very highest possible degree of certainty, that Mary had sex NOT ONCE EVER? Because, my good friend, a "rumor" is a popularly and perhaps long held report or story that is not substantiated, and the Catholic Catechism says that spreading a rumor is a SIN and thus NOT LOVING (the issue of this thread). Therefore, for this issue of highest importance and greatest certainty, this story about a surpemely personal, intimate aspect of Our Blessed Lady's life, there is but ONE ISSUE - is it dogmatically substantiated? If it's not, then we are sinning by speading it according to the Catholic Catechism. AND because this is an issue of great, GREAT, potential for personal offense, pain, hurt and embarrassment to Our Mother, the chief of saints, the Mother of God, whom we love, adore, esteem and revere, doesn't it matter if it's true?

My mum taught me that before I spread a rumor, I need to ask myself two questions: is it true and is it kind? Perhaps Catholic mothers do not teach this to their children.







.

 

[katholikos]

She can't. Sorry

She can speak to her Son, just as the mothers of Jewish kings always have

 

[WarriorAngel]

When I said that I AM single, that is a factual statement.
It does NOT mean that it is a dogmatic FACT that I am a PERPETUAL bachelor.
What part of that don't you understand, my good and respected friend?




Now, how does this address the singular issue of how we KNOW, how we dogmaticatically confirm to the very highest possible degree of certainty, that Mary had sex NOT ONCE EVER? Because, my good friend, a "rumor" is a popularly and perhaps long held report or story that is not substantiated, and the Catholic Catechism says that spreading a rumor is a SIN and thus NOT LOVING (the issue of this thread). Therefore, for this issue of highest importance and greatest certainty, this story about a surpemely personal, intimate aspect of Our Blessed Lady's life, there is but ONE ISSUE - is it dogmatically substantiated? If it's not, then we are sinning by speading it according to the Catholic Catechism. AND because this is an issue of great, GREAT, potential for personal offense, pain, hurt and embarrassment to Our Mother, the chief of saints, the Mother of God, whom we love, adore, esteem and revere, doesn't it matter if it's true?

My mum taught me that before I spread a rumor, I need to ask myself two questions: is it true and is it kind? Perhaps Catholic mothers do not teach this to their children.







.

Sorry buddy - you didnt answer the direct question.

The only ones who would spread rumors would be the ones who are not in the know.
Because rumors are not truth - and those who know the truth are not spreading rumors.

So who was here first? Who witnessed the truth since the start?

Then it would stand to reason if one Church [altho divided into 3] are still in agreement THEN the evidence of even that should show the Tradition still holds the same truth.

Take for instance that shortly after the 4th century council [i could be in err] but anyway, after the council - was when the Coptic Rite schismed and yet still holds the same Tradition.

Now as i said - rumors only occur when folks are 'making it up' because they do not know. And admit it, you are always telling us we cannot know if scriptures doesn't make a clear distinct writing about it. Because scriptures DO IN FACT point to the truth [as i showed a few times now with OT passages] you changed the rules ... and now you want 'OTHER' passages that you understand. Am i correct?

SO those who are saying she didnt remain a virgin, or argue many of the facts regarding Mary - then it would seem the 'johnny come lately's' would be the ones spreading rumors and not the Church who has been here since the inception.

Ok, lets get this straight...and LET'S PRETEND you are a woman and your name is Josie.

IF an angel comes to you while you are engaged to be married [which is the closest concept we have for be being betrothed] with your fiance - and they tell you [we shall skip the greeting because it explains the magnitude of Mary's 'pre saved'] ...
Anyway, the angel says to you 'Josie, You shall conceive a Son and name him Mark...'

NOW - wouldn't you assume the angel was referring to the consumated relationship with your spouse after the nuptials??

And please - be honest.

Ok, I will wait.

Whats the honest answer?

 

[katholikos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB_7xyx6mhs&feature=related

Salve, Regina, mater misericordiae:
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve.
Ad te clamamus, exsules, filii Hevae.
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
in hac lacrimarum valle.
Eia ergo, Advocata nostra,
illos tuos misericordes oculos
ad nos converte.
Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui,
nobis, post hoc exsilium ostende.
O clemens: O pia: O dulcis
Virgo Maria.

(Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!
Our life, our sweetness, and our hope!
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve,
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley, of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile show unto us the
blessed fruit of thy womb Jesus;
O clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary.)

 

[WarriorAngel]

She can speak to her Son, just as the mothers of Jewish kings always gave

True true...
And if the King was as loving as God Her Son, He would honor His mother's request.

 

[Sphinx777]

She can speak to her Son, just as the mothers of Jewish kings always gave

Indeed...

MARY THE QUEEN MOTHER OF THE NEW DAVIDIC KINGDOM

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Indeed...

MARY THE QUEEN MOTHER OF THE NEW DAVIDIC KINGDOM

Howdy Sphinx. I saw this:

quote from site:......... "As Christ’s mother she reflects His light just as the moon reflects the light of the sun and she calls all her children in the family of the Church to follow her Son and to do, as she advised the servants at the wedding at Cana, whatever He tells you [John 2:5]........

That must have been a heck of wine as look what He does later

John 2:5 Is saying the mother of Him to the stewards "which any ever He may be saying to ye, do!"

15 And making a scourge out of rushes, all He cast-out out of the temple the both and the sheep and the oxen and of the proceeds He pours out. The changer and the tables he upturned

 

[katholikos]

Indeed...

MARY THE QUEEN MOTHER OF THE NEW DAVIDIC KINGDOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WwjFXw2yE0

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When I said that I AM single, that is a factual statement.
It does NOT mean that it is a dogmatic FACT that I am a PERPETUAL bachelor.
What part of that don't you understand, my good and respected friend?




Now, how does this address the singular issue of how we KNOW, how we dogmatically confirm to the very highest possible degree of certainty, that Mary had sex NOT ONCE EVER? Because, my good friend, a "rumor" is a popularly and perhaps long held report or story that is not substantiated, and the Catholic Catechism says that spreading a rumor is a SIN and thus NOT LOVING (the issue of this thread). Therefore, for this issue of highest importance and greatest certainty, this story about a surpemely personal, intimate aspect of Our Blessed Lady's life, there is but ONE ISSUE - is it dogmatically substantiated? If it's not, then we are sinning by speading it according to the Catholic Catechism. AND because this is an issue of great, GREAT, potential for personal offense, pain, hurt and embarrassment to Our Mother, the chief of saints, the Mother of God, whom we love, adore, esteem and revere, doesn't it matter if it's true?

My mum taught me that before I spread a rumor, I need to ask myself two questions: is it true and is it kind? Perhaps Catholic mothers do not teach this to their children.

Sorry buddy - you didnt answer the direct question.

You didn't answer any of mine...
Review what I posted (as you quoted) and note the question marks.



But AGAIN, my answer is that "I am" does not mean "I will perpetually always be." Seems like third grade grammar to me.... I AM single, it doesn't mean that it is a dogmatic fact of the highest certainty that I'm a PERPETUAL bachelor. What part of that isn't clear to you, my friend?

The only ones who would spread rumors would be the ones who are not in the know.

Because rumors are not truth - and those who know the truth are not spreading rumors.[/quote]


1. No, a rumor by definition is an unsubstantiated report or story. It MAY be true, it MAY be false but it's not known if it's true or false because it is unsubstantiated. It may be popularly held, it may be anciently held, but it's a rumor because it's unsubstantiated. The Catholic Catechism specifically states that to spread a rumor is to SIN, thus it seems that is THE issue of this thread, for is it LOVING to sin against someone?


2. Okay, then quote those who would KNOW about Mary's most personal, private, intimate aspect of her relationship with her husband? In other threads, I have asked for just ONE person (I've even okay'ed a heretic, a liar, one entirely without any credibility - I'm just looking for SOMEONE!!!!) who personally knew Mary (thus, could theoretically know this surpremely private, personal detail) and who specifically stated that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. But, so far, no quote from no such person has been offered. Thus, you are getting to one of the issues here: NO ONE "in the know" (or even POTENTIALLY "in the know") has EVER substantiated this veiw - or even expressed a personal UNsubstantiated opinion that it's true.

SO those who are saying she didnt remain a virgin, or argue many of the facts regarding Mary

No. There are only THREE denominations on the planet (out of the 30,000 Catholics argue exists) that have ANY official view regarded Mary's sex life, and all three of those regard it as DOGMA that she never once had sex - ever, not once, nope. This, they argue, is a matter of greatest importance and highest certainty: Mary NEVER had sex. The ball, my good friend, is thus entirely in your court....

NO Protestant denomination, known to me, has ANY dogma (or even doctrine) about Mary's sex life. How often she did it, how she did it, where she did it - NOTHING about it. YOU are the one insisting this is an issue of highest importance, not any Protestant denomination. YOU are the one stating that it is DOGMA and thus requiring dogmatic substantiation. The ball, my good friend, is thus entirely and only in your court....

Whats the honest answer?

The fact that I AM a bachelor has absolutely ZERO relevance to whether I will die as a PERPETUAL bachelor. In the same way, Mary stating that "I AM a virgin" does not dogmatically substantiate that she is a PERPETUAL virgin. It's simply grammar, my good friend. THAT is my honest answer, and you still haven't answered my question as to why my answer is dogmatically impossible.









.

 

[WarriorAngel]

You didn't answer any of mine...
Review what I posted (as you quoted) and note the question marks.



But AGAIN, my answer is that "I am" does not mean "I will perpetually always be." Seems like third grade grammar to me.... I AM single, it doesn't mean that it is a dogmatic fact of the highest certainty that I'm a PERPETUAL bachelor. What part of that isn't clear to you, my friend?

Ok, going with that mind set - you know you WILL THEN consumate your relationship in the future and therefore it would come as NO SURPRISE you would conceive a child.

Are we on the same page as of yet?
If you figured out that in the near future you would soon be married - you wouldnt say to the angel - well how will i have a child since i am going to remain a bachelor??
Your idea makes no sense to me, CJ. SINCE you know you are getting married you would not say 'how'...UNLESS you intended to remain celibate. THEN i could see how it would be a puzzle.
It would be rather obvious...wouldnt it?

- when you review the passage closely you will find that MARY does NOT assume her condition will EVER ONCE CHANGE.

Thru her words she is testifying to the fulfilment of the passage where God says 'where I pass thru NO MAN shall pass thru after Me...'

She is clearly and pointedly denying that she will ever change her condition even when she does marry Joseph.

For a woman to say 'How can this be since I KNOW NOT MAN.'
IE - how will i conceive a child when i have no plans to consumate a marriage to a man...

1. No, a rumor by definition is an unsubstantiated report or story. It MAY be true, it MAY be false but it's not known if it's true or false because it is unsubstantiated. It may be popularly held, it may be anciently held, but it's a rumor because it's unsubstantiated. The Catholic Catechism specifically states that to spread a rumor is to SIN, thus it seems that is THE issue of this thread, for is it LOVING to sin against someone?


2. Okay, then quote those who would KNOW about Mary's most personal, private, intimate aspect of her relationship with her husband? In other threads, I have asked for just ONE person (I've even okay'ed a heretic, a liar, one entirely without any credibility - I'm just looking for SOMEONE!!!!) who personally knew Mary (thus, could theoretically know this surpremely private, personal detail) and who specifically stated that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. But, so far, no quote from no such person has been offered. Thus, you are getting to one of the issues here: NO ONE "in the know" (or even POTENTIALLY "in the know") has EVER substantiated this veiw - or even expressed a personal UNsubstantiated opinion that it's true.

Perhaps this sort of issue was never placed in the NT [aside from her own obvious words to the angel] - so as NOT to cause a scandal to Mary's purity. Drawing attention to things that would cause ppl to have impure thots regarding her.
AND let's be honest - ppl who discuss this subject are indeed visualling things they ought not.

For real - how distasteful it would have been [and imho now] to discuss her chastity.
WHICH is why the OT alluded to her condition thru the 'foreshadowing' of the gate.
Which did not actually have to cause her a scandal.

No. There are only THREE denominations on the planet (out of the 30,000 Catholics argue exists) that have ANY official view regarded Mary's sex life, and all three of those regard it as DOGMA that she never once had sex - ever, not once, nope. This, they argue, is a matter of greatest importance and highest certainty: Mary NEVER had sex. The ball, my good friend, is thus entirely in your court....

NO Protestant denomination, known to me, has ANY dogma (or even doctrine) about Mary's sex life. How often she did it, how she did it, where she did it - NOTHING about it. YOU are the one insisting this is an issue of highest importance, not any Protestant denomination. YOU are the one stating that it is DOGMA and thus requiring dogmatic substantiation. The ball, my good friend, is thus entirely and only in your court....







The fact that I AM a bachelor has absolutely ZERO relevance to whether I will die as a PERPETUAL bachelor. In the same way, Mary stating that "I AM a virgin" does not dogmatically substantiate that she is a PERPETUAL virgin. It's simply grammar, my good friend. THAT is my honest answer, and you still haven't answered my question as to why my answer is dogmatically impossible.









.

The ball is in our court - and we still agree to this very fact.
That is suffice to proove that it was a Tradition from the start and it should be evidence that it is not a new founded opinion such as today from those who have no historical teachings prior to 1500 AD or 1800 AD...

 

[katholikos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbCFHTJ6Ax4

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

You didn't answer any of mine...
Review what I posted (as you quoted) and note the question marks.



But AGAIN, my answer is that "I am" does not mean "I will perpetually always be." Seems like third grade grammar to me.... I AM single, it doesn't mean that it is a dogmatic fact of the highest certainty that I'm a PERPETUAL bachelor. What part of that isn't clear to you, my friend?


​

If you figured out that in the near future you would soon be married - you wouldnt say to the angel - well how will i have a child since i am going to remain a bachelor??
Your idea makes no sense to me, CJ. SINCE you know you are getting married you would not say 'how'...UNLESS you intended to remain celibate. THEN i could see how it would be a puzzle.It would be rather obvious...wouldnt it?

Mary stated, "I AM a virgin." She said NOTHING about being a PERPETUAL virgin - her statement is entirely unrelated to perpetuality and certainly does NOT offer any dogmatic substantiation to anything of perpetuality.

I stated, "I AM a bachelor." That says NOTHING about being a PERPETUAL bachelor - my statement is entirely unrelated to perpetuality and cerainly does NOT offer any dogmatic substantiation to anything of perpetuality.

What part of that still puzzels you?

when you review the passage closely you will find that MARY does NOT assume her condition will EVER ONCE CHANGE.

When I posted that I AM a bachelor, what part of that dogmatically indicates that I am NOT a perpetual bachelor? "I AM a virgin" = "I AM a virgin." Grammar 101, my good friend.

1. No, a rumor by definition is an unsubstantiated report or story. It MAY be true, it MAY be false but it's not known if it's true or false because it is unsubstantiated. It may be popularly held, it may be anciently held, but it's a rumor because it's unsubstantiated. The Catholic Catechism specifically states that to spread a rumor is to SIN, thus it seems that is THE issue of this thread, for is it LOVING to sin against someone?

2. Okay, then quote those who would KNOW about Mary's most personal, private, intimate aspect of her relationship with her husband? In other threads, I have asked for just ONE person (I've even okay'ed a heretic, a liar, one entirely without any credibility - I'm just looking for SOMEONE!!!!) who personally knew Mary (thus, could theoretically know this surpremely private, personal detail) and who specifically stated that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. But, so far, no quote from no such person has been offered. Thus, you are getting to one of the issues here: NO ONE "in the know" (or even POTENTIALLY "in the know") has EVER substantiated this veiw - or even expressed a personal UNsubstantiated opinion that it's true.

Perhaps .....

We're not speaking of a theoretical possiblity, in 3 denominations (only) it is a DOGMA that Mary had no sex ever - not once, nope, never.

For real - how distasteful it would have been [and imho now] to discuss her chastity.

Frankly, to be blunt, I agree with you...
So, why do 3 denominations INSIST on discussing it as the highest level of importance?
Why make this very point DOGMA?



I don't know how often you and your spouse share loving, marital intimacies. Or how or where or when. Or even if you do. To be blunt but with NO INTENT of being disrespectful to you and your spouse, frankly, it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS. This is an issue between the two of you. Thus, I'm pretty uncomfortable with my telling all 6.5 billion people in the world AS A DOGMATIC FACT of the highest importance and greatest certainty that you and your spouse do it exactly 2.789 times per week. Especially since I have no information to that point and no permission from you and y your spouse.

Friend, while my parents are no "prudes" and while I HAVE been informed that they share this loving marital intimacy, I don't know how often they do it. Or when. Or how. And frankly, why does that matter to me? Why is it ANY of my business? (Would you think me a prude if I share that I really don't even want to know?).

Thus you are addressing one of my points in this DOGMA of 3 denominations. Why is it a matter of highest and greatest importance? Why is it the surpreme matter of GREAT importance for 10 year old children to know how often Mary "did it" with Joseph, if at all??????????? And, IF (and I don't know), IF you would be uncomfortable (maybe even offended!!!) by my telling the whole world that it is a DOGMATIC FACT that you and your spouse do it 2.789 times per week on average (even if that is true, and of course I have no substantiation to that point), then why are you DOGMATICALLY certain that Mary is of the exact opposite view than you and she is GLAD everyone knows this supremely private tidbit from her marriage? Seems to ME, the potential for great embarrassment, hurt, pain and even offense is HUGE - even if (EVEN IF) this is true (and you clearly have ZERO evidence that it is).

No. There are only THREE denominations on the planet (out of the 30,000 Catholics argue exists) that have ANY official view regarded Mary's sex life, and all three of those regard it as DOGMA that she never once had sex - ever, not once, nope. This, they argue, is a matter of greatest importance and highest certainty: Mary NEVER had sex. The ball, my good friend, is thus entirely in your court....

NO Protestant denomination, known to me, has ANY dogma (or even doctrine) about Mary's sex life. How often she did it, how she did it, where she did it - NOTHING about it. YOU are the one insisting this is an issue of highest importance, not any Protestant denomination. YOU are the one stating that it is DOGMA and thus requiring dogmatic substantiation. The ball, my good friend, is thus entirely and only in your court....

The fact that I AM a bachelor has absolutely ZERO relevance to whether I will die as a PERPETUAL bachelor. In the same way, Mary stating that "I AM a virgin" does not dogmatically substantiate that she is a PERPETUAL virgin. It's simply grammar, my good friend. THAT is my honest answer, and you still haven't answered my question as to why my answer is dogmatically impossible.

The ball is in our court

Good. Then stop trying to ask others to disprove it....

And supply substantiation adequate for the highest level of importance and certainty, substantiation that you would accept as adequate for such from a Protestant or Mormon.

That is suffice to proove that it was a Tradition from the start and it should be evidence that it is not a new founded opinion such as today from those who have no historical teachings prior to 1500 AD or 1800 AD...

Actually, Gnosticism is much older, and yet you don't accept that as DOGMA. The reality is it was NOT a teaching from the start - or at least no one has been able to offer a SHRED OF ANYTHING to support that. I've asked for just ONE person who personally knew Mary who specifically stated that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. I've even agreed to accept such from a heretic, a liar, someone with ZERO credibility - just someone who knew Mary and therefore at least THEORETICALLY could know this entirely moot and absolutely private aspect of her sex life. No one has been able to do that.

So, you have not substantiated that it is true...
You have not substantiated that it was always believed to be true (even if entirely unsubstantiated)
You haven't even substantiated that ANYONE who knew Mary - even ONE person - believed it to be true even if unsubstantiated.


Is THIS the level of substantiation you'll accept for dogma? Because if it is, then Mormonism is LIGHT YEARS more credible than this dogma.....
And is THIS the level of substantiation you'll accept for a rumor? Because if it is, Bigfoot is MUCH, MUCH less of a rumor than this one.





.

 

[katholikos]

...So, why do 3 denominations INSIST on discussing it as the highest level of importance?....

I have a question: Why are you so obsessed with this? You have repeated the same indignation page after page after page about the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception being Dogma. Why is the issue of such importance to you? You have talked about it more in this thread than many Catholics talk about it in their whole lives for Pete's sake.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have a question: You have repeated about the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception being Dogma. Why is the issue of such importance to you?

You have it reversed.

I think that Mary's personal sex life is unimportant (frankly, none of our business). The RCC and EO regard it as a matter of highest importance.



.

 

[Thekla]

we are, as the body of Christ, to have the mind of Christ.

IC | XC
______

NI | KA