Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
None of those commentaries are 2000 years old, nor are your 'regular, open minded theological web sites'. But at least you admit that you follow a tradition, albeit a relatively recent one.
That's true.The fact that Jesus made sure His mother was taken care of by John, has absolute nothing to do with her virginity.
Also true. That's speculation.1. There is absolutely NO Biblical evidence that suggests Joseph was much older than Mary.
True.2. There is also NO Biblical evidence that Joseph was married previously.
We should let Major1 speak for himself. No, he doesn't follow a "tradition" instead of scripture nor did he say he does so, and it was the New Testament that he said was 2000 years old, not something else.
That's true.
Also true. That's speculation.
True.
Enoch and Elijah were taken into heaven alive. Mary's body was taken after she died.Yes my friend, I am well aware of your comment about the death of Mary.
My point is that Mary’s death is not recorded in the Bible. Nothing is said about Mary being a perpetual virgin, or bein sinless, ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there or her presumed "Assumption".
We know that everyone in the past has died except Enoch and Elijah and IMO they were used as an example of the Rapture to Old Test saints.
Hebrews 9:27..........
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".
That Christ had to entrust Mary to someone's care (ALL her children would care for her), and that Mary, after being espoused, was shocked upon being told she would concieve, are both Biblical evidence of the Patristic account. How you choose to interpret this evidence is up to you, but I'm sticking with the ancient understanding, not the newly coined one.The fact that Jesus made sure His mother was taken care of by John, has absolute nothing to do with her virginity.
Now......... Two things to understand.
1. There is absolutely NO Biblical evidence that suggests Joseph was much older than Mary.
2. There is also NO Biblical evidence that Joseph was married previously.
Both of those comments are completely fictional and are products of the RCC.
His own words betray him.We should let Major1 speak for himself. No, he doesn't follow a "tradition" instead of scripture nor did he say he does so, and it was the New Testament that he said was 2000 years old, not something else.
No. It is not.His own words betray him.
He stressed that the interpretation of Scripture that he pushes is not his own, and then directed me to various sources, all of them modern, for evidence of the teaching that he is passing on. That is the very definition of "tradition". .
Enoch and Elijah were taken into heaven alive. Mary's body was taken after she died.
The NT is not a biography of Mary or even Jesus. It is a collection of the teachings crucial for salvation. Mary's death is hardly a teaching crucial to salvation, but it is true...unless the Spirit of Truth Christ promised would guide the Church, fell asleep on the job.
His own words betray him.
He stressed that the interpretation of Scripture that he pushes is not his own, and then directed me to various sources, all of them modern, for evidence of the teaching that he is passing on. That is the very definition of "tradition". He has also clearly identified it as a "tradition of men" as he identifies a number of his sources as individual men.
You and I both know that no one can read a text without interpreting, and that includes the text of Scripture. He keeps conflating the age of Scripture with his particular (traditional) interpretation despite the tradition he follows being unknown in the early church. Every Church with origins preceding the councils which ruled on Mary's ever virginity, maintain that she remained a virgin.
So it comes down to which tradition you choose to follow. That of the early church fathers, or that of the latter day Protestant fathers.
That Christ had to entrust Mary to someone's care (ALL her children would care for her), and that Mary, after being espoused, was shocked upon being told she would concieve, are both Biblical evidence of the Patristic account. How you choose to interpret this evidence is up to you, but I'm sticking with the ancient understanding, not the newly coined one.
Oh? What is your definition?No. It is not.
For Aquinas it was a question of WHEN she was immaculately conceived, not IF.Once again. Did Thomas Aquinas oppose the doctine of the immaculate conception or not? I only ask that you clarify this because you earlier accused me of being deceptive, so either demonstrate that I was being deceptive or retract the accusation.
That makes no sense whatsoever.For Aquinas it was a question of WHEN she was immaculately conceived, not IF.
Even though Aquinas did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception, (a matter of WHEN) he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin (not a matter of IF AT ALL)That makes no sense whatsoever.
Never suggested such a thing. My only comment was regarding your quoting of Aquinas in support of the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception when he himself opposed the dogma. You seem to have read into that an awful lot of additional stuff which I had not, and would not have suggested. I have not read Aquinas for a long time but do remember some things clearly. You give the impression that you yourself have only read the bits quoted in the articles you link to.Thus you should never tolerate someone to say that Aquinas endorsed the idea that Mary was sinful.
You are totally correct. When one rejects the Bible as sole authority in spiritual matters and accepts the words of man, disaster always follows.
Why is that?????
Because ALL men are sinners. There is none righeteous, no not one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?