Answer to Gabriel

[Fireinfolding]

It is related to the other Marian Dogma, the immaculate conception, which together with her perpetual virginity as the faithful handmaid of the Lord, relates to Christ's unstained-by-original-sin humanity.

The apostles never mention it.

 

[HTacianas]

Okay, I see, this is going to be another one of those "perpetual virginty" of Mary threads.

Why does it matter so much? Why not be a little more obsessive about the perpetual virginity of our Lord Jesus Christ? Since we know for sure he was into perpetuality.

And male virgins is a thing too

Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.
These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Why would Mary not having sex with her husband be something we should care about?

That's an interesting question. Why should it matter? Why should it matter to anyone either way? You'll find the answer to the question in anti-Catholic protestantism. If the Roman Church says a thing, there are protestants out there who will argue against it and attack the Roman Church over it. The real problem with that is if you attack the Roman Church hard enough you will eventually find yourself attacking Christianity itself.

Most of the people who engage in the attacks see it at as either/or proposition. There is the Roman Church and there is themself. But they either forget or have no knowledge whatever of the Eastern Churches who hold the same beliefs. And that provides us an earmark of heresy. If we look at the Mormon's "Great Abominable Church", meaning the Roman Church, or the Seventh Day Adventists who attack the Roman Church, or the Calvinists who do the same, we find an utter lack of universal knowledge of the Church. And that lack of universal knowledge is an indicator of the lie that those beliefs come from some supernatural or prophetic knowledge.

 

[Fireinfolding]

That's an interesting question. Why should it matter? Why should it matter to anyone either way?

I am in a family full of catholics (both sides) of which I am a part, having questions begin within until you eventually find yourself without. And being a protestant is just something you become by default rejecting it for the most part.

You'll find the answer to the question in anti-Catholic protestantism.

It's always better to ask the source concerning the doubts you might have about their teachings and why they believe what they do.

If the Roman Church says a thing, there are protestants out there who will argue against it and attack the Roman Church over it. The real problem with that is if you attack the Roman Church hard enough you will eventually find yourself attacking Christianity itself.

So reasoning out of the scriptures and finding fault with a certain position would be considered an attack on Christianity?

Most of the people who engage in the attacks see it at as either/or proposition. There is the Roman Church and there is themself. But they either forget or have no knowledge whatever of the Eastern Churches who hold the same beliefs. And that provides us an earmark of heresy. If we look at the Mormon's "Great Abominable Church", meaning the Roman Church, or the Seventh Day Adventists who attack the Roman Church, or the Calvinists who do the same, we find an utter lack of universal knowledge of the Church. And that lack of universal knowledge is an indicator of the lie that those beliefs come from some supernatural or prophetic knowledge.

I dont know what you are going on about here, just asking questions.

 

[Lost4words]

Was Jesus yours the moment you were conceived too?

Once i was baptised.

Mary was Blessed and pure from conception.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Once i was baptised.

Mary was Blessed and pure from conception.

Thats a little better, hard to distinguish how you see Mary versus any other believer in God as it relates to the Savior. So you believe Mary was born of a sinless woman in order for her womb to glow golden enough (so to speak) so she could fulfil her destiny to carry Jesus in her womb for 9 months? Or in some way similar Jesus is more specifically Mary's Savior from the time she was conceived in her own mother's womb through natural sexual relations with her own father?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Why would Jesus have to be born of a woman without any sin as if such a woman who had sin would somehow defile him when you see how the women in scripture who were laden with sins did touch him in life and were healed by him?

 

[HTacianas]

I am in a family full of catholics (both sides) of which I am a part, having questions begin within until you eventually find yourself without. And being a protestant is just something you become by default rejecting it for the most part.


It's always better to ask the source concerning the doubts you might have about their teachings and why they believe what they do.



So reasoning out of the scriptures and finding fault with a certain position would be considered an attack on Christianity?

I dont know what you are going on about here, just asking questions.

There are some things the Roman Church believes that I personally object to, but they are not matters of salvation. But you ask about sources of doubts and also about reasoning from the scriptures. Maybe we should begin there. If someone reasons some thing or another from the scriptures, and someone else reasons some thing from the scriptures, and they end up with completely opposing views, who decides which one is right?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The apostles never mention it.

How would you know that?

 

[Fireinfolding]

There are some things the Roman Church believes that I personally object to, but they are not matters of salvation. But you ask about sources of doubts and also about reasoning from the scriptures. Maybe we should begin there. If someone reasons some thing or another from the scriptures, and someone else reasons some thing from the scriptures, and they end up with completely opposing views, who decides which one is right?

Not really interested in taking up another back and forth, you can start a thread on that.

 

[Fireinfolding]

How would you know that?

Point out where in the espitles they even breath a whisper on any such thing.

Mary is mentioned by name once in the 1st chapter of Acts after Jesus' resurrection gathered with all the others, and after that, the apostles never wrote scratch about her in any of their epistles other than Gal 4:4

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

And thats it, she isn't even mentioned by name there, its pretty much depersonalized there.

 

[Servus]

There's quite a lot that I'm in agreement with regarding the Catholic church. But Mariology is something that I'll likely never get into. And I figure I probably couldn't become a Catholic without it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Point out where in the espitles they even breath a whisper on any such thing.

Why do I need to do that?

The Church has a living memory, it's a family that has remembered history, family practices and Traditions. The scriptures contain some of what the Church knows and has received from God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There's quite a lot that I'm in agreement with regarding the Catholic church. But Mariology is something that I'll likely never get into. And I figure I probably couldn't become a Catholic without it.

As the apostle wrote, "taste and see...".

 

[Fireinfolding]

Why do I need to do that?

The Church has a living memory, it's a family that has remembered history, family practices and Traditions. The scriptures contain some of what the Church knows and has received from God.

You would think there would be a small jot's worth of anything on Mary, but its dead silence from them in the epistles cocerning her after the resurrection. You would think there would be "something".

You sure don't need to point out whats not there, I will leave off there.

 

[Servus]

As the apostle wrote, "taste and see...".

"Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!". Psalm 34:8 wasn't written by an apostle and is about the Lord. So how does it apply Mariology?

 

[Fireinfolding]

As the apostle wrote, "taste and see...".

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

 

[Fireinfolding]

"Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!". Psalm 34:8 wasn't written by an apostle and is about the Lord. So how does it apply Mariology?

I was posting the same verse as you, guess you saw that one too

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You would think there would be a small jot's worth of anything on Mary, but its dead silent from them in the epistles cocerning her after the resurrection. You would think there would be "something".

You sure don't need to point out whats not there, I will leave off there.

It never seemed reasonable to argue that something doesn't exist because it isn't in a specific book. There's plenty in the writings of the Early Church about Blessed Mary and more than sufficient in the new testament too.

 

[Servus]

You would think there would be a small jot's worth of anything on Mary, but its dead silent from them in the epistles cocerning her after the resurrection. You would think there would be "something".

You sure don't need to point out whats not there, I will leave off there.

There's nothing in the writings of the apostolic fathers either. The easiest writing I know of traces back to St. Jerome (c. 342–420).

The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (i.e. ever-virgin).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!". Psalm 34:8 wasn't written by an apostle and is about the Lord. So how does it apply Mariology?

It applies to Blessed Mary and a whole host of saints; taste and see if they are good. Test the claims.