Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

The problem with the side trying to proven the BVM's perpetual virginity is that there is not any absolute Scriptural proof for it. That is what the other side wants not just history because the other side does not trust that and if one is going to engage them then you need to understand that.

Not everyone accepts Sola Scriptura and not everyone accepts historical documentation. Both sides will not be satisfied even though some good documentation was put forward

washedagain said:

I don't.


All the scriptures have demonstrated is that Mary is confused because she has yet to be with a man and conceived within the same 24 hour period... not YEARS later after she is wed.

Click to expand...

Consider the original interpretation from Aramaic (the language Mary and Christ spoke) to Greek.

The Greek for both "will conceive" (sullēmpsē) and "[will] bear" (texē) in Luke 1:31 are in the future middle indicative tense. The future indicative, obviously, means that it indicates something that is to take place in the future.

The middle voice means that the subject of the sentence (in this case "you"; i.e. Mary) acts in some way that conerns herself or that she is involved to a large degree in the action or the results of that action. The use of the middle voice, then, is not suprising since Gabriel is speaking of pregnancy and birth; quite obviously the mother is involved to a very great degree in pregnancy and birth.

The point of all that is to say that the middle voice simply speaks of Mary's involvement in the action but in no way changes or mitigates the fact that the verbs are most definitely in the future indicative tense.

There's no further clue as to how soon or not at all soon this future action will take place.




Mary has only one question for the angel Gabriel. And it’s a question that provides a beautiful window into Our Lady’s unique spiritual life, but one we might overlook if we don’t read the Annunciation account carefully: Mary says to the angel, "How can this be since I do not know man?"
Two important facts will help us better appreciate the significance of Mary’s question. First, at this moment in the story we know that Mary is a virgin betrothed to Joseph, meaning that she is at the first stage of marriage. She is truly married to Joseph but not yet living with him, for she has not arrived at the second stage of marriage known as the "coming together," when husband and wife typically would begin to live in the same house and consummate the marriage.

Second, Mary has been told by Gabriel that at some time in the future she will bear a son who will be the royal Son of David, the Messiah-King. Notice the future tense: "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Lk. 1:31, emphasis added). So far, Gabriel gives no indication that the conception will take place right now or in the immediate future. In fact, the timetable is quite open-ended. Without giving any time specification, the angel simply informs Mary that she will conceive this child at some time in the future.

Now consider this: If Mary were just an ordinary Jewish betrothed woman—planning on consummating her marriage once she reached the coming-together stage—when would she expect such a pregnancy to take place? In other words, if a betrothed woman in the first century was informed by a prophet that she was going to have a child at some time in the future, when would that woman expect such a pregnancy to begin? Presumably, sometime after betrothal—after the coming together, when sexual intercourse was permitted. Spoken to an ordinary betrothed woman, such an announcement about conceiving a child would naturally point to her future married life, after consummation.

In this light, Mary’s question seems rather peculiar: "How can this be since I do not know man?" If Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph in the near future, the answer to her question should be obvious. While she does not right now have the power to conceive a child (since she doesn’t yet "know" man sexually), if Mary intends to know Joseph after the coming together, then she evidently will be able to have a child at that point. Therefore, if Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph, her question—"How can this be since I do not know man?"—simply does not make sense.

This is why some Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen in Mary’s question an indication that she was not intending to consummate her marriage. According to this perspective, Mary raises her question because she has made a decision to remain a virgin throughout her life. This view, advanced by theologians such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure (and even Martin Luther), explains Mary’s question not as one of doubt, but one that seeks clarification as to how she can conceive a child if she has committed herself to the Lord in virginity.

A second question often raised is, "Why would Mary accept betrothal to Joseph if she intended to remain a virgin?" Diverse explanations have been given for this unique marriage. Perhaps since remaining a single woman was not as socially feasible in the ancient world of Judaism as it is today, marriage would have provided economic stability and social protection for Mary. Perhaps the marriage was arranged. Perhaps marriage would free Mary from other men seeking her hand in marriage and thus protect her vow. Perhaps God led Mary to marriage because in His providence, He wanted to protect her reputation for the future when she would conceive by the Holy Spirit. John Paul II pondered this question, too, and offered his own suggestion:

We can wonder why she would accept betrothal, since she had the intention of remaining a virgin forever . . . It may be presumed that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin. Moreover, the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Mary to choose virginity in view of the mystery of the Incarnation and who wanted the latter to come about in a family setting suited to the child’s growth, was quite able to instill in Joseph the ideal of virginity as well.

Blessings

washedagain said:

Not necessary... It doesn't have to be proved by the bible... but I would like it proved by history..... and not late arriving (that would be over 100 years) statements... if there were first century writings of Mary's PV, I would consider it... but possibly not find it salvific.

Click to expand...

There are exceptions to what I wrote

washedagain said:

Not necessary... It doesn't have to be proved by the bible... but I would like it proved by history..... and not late arriving (that would be over 100 years) statements... if there were first century writings of Mary's PV, I would consider it... but possibly not find it salvific.

Click to expand...

Who said it is salvific?

Mary's virginity became the first problem of the Patristic Age. St. Justin the Martyr (+165) points to Isaiah 7:14 in his treatise, Against Trypho, who changed parthenos (virgin) to almah (young girl) in the Septuagint translation of the Sacred Scriptures. Both St. Ireneus (+202) and Tertullian (+220) agree with St. Justin. St. Zeno of Verona (+372) was the first to refer to Mary's virginity as ante paltum, in partu; post paltum, that is before birth, during birth and after birth.

Click to expand...

Solemnity of the Anunciation

St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (155 A.D.): "For Eve, a Virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High God. And she replied: 'Be it done unto me according to thy word.'"

Click to expand...

50 years do not make such a difference...now do they?

I wonder if the reason people are so angry with Mary and so eager to drag her through the mud is that they don't want to believe it is possible for humans to be so submissive to God's will, and free from sins. If we drag her down to our level, it makes being a Christian so much more comfortable.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Worse, while NOTHING has been shown to confirm this intensely private, personal tidbit to be true (only, AT MOST, theoretically POSSIBLE), there's been a complete evasion of why THIS issue (how often couples have sex) is SO, so very, very radically IMPORTANT - to the highest level possible. Why do you CARE how often She and St. Joseph shared marital intimacies (if at all), SO much - so very, very,very much - to make THIS dogma, a matter of highest importance? In fact, why mention it AT ALL? Do you talk about how often you have sex? Your mother or sister or daughter? THAT issue has been entirely evaded. Both the TRUTH of it and why it's so IMPORTANT.

Click to expand...

This is not about anyone being offended re: statements about someone's private life; about whether or not someone has had sex.

After all, it is the Holy Scriptures that makes statements about Mary's private sex life; it is stated in the Bible that Mary is virgin. As you have pointed out, virgin means "no sex". Referring to someone as a "virgin" is talking about what you call the "most private" part of someone's life.

This is about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term).

This tendency is extended to an offense at women expressing themselves. When what a woman states is twisted, ignored, denied. It has happened amply in this thread -- statements made by women are perhaps not even read, as summaries of what is posted skip the point being made, or is changed away from what has actually been said. Like refusing to respect what Mary has said for herself.

In fact, you have repeatedly refused or failed to respond directly to what I post. Many of your responses are actually non responses; I ask a question, or make a statement and habitually your "response" does not deal with what I have said. You just repost what you have already stated. That's non-responsive. That's a refusal to "hear" me, or actually consider what I have stated.

Over the years you have used your mother's sex life as an example in your posts. You have inquired about my sex life. That's trespassing the boundary you have claimed to respect.

In sum: the Bible talks about Mary's sex life. You talk about Mary's sex life whenever you use the term virgin. You have talked about your mother and sex, and my sex life (last year, iirc).

This is about being offended about discussing a man's sex life ( you state that the term virgin is usually used of females ), and about the possibility that a man might be refused sex.

This is really about the "sacredness" of the male ego - enshrining the male id.

washedagain said:

It is NOT a game... This is about TRUTH. You have a dogma... PROVE it.

Obviously you can't.

Click to expand...

What does "prove" mean to you? Do you need a dated, signed, notarized "Official Document of Virginity" from the high priest of Mary's day? I mean, really. You keep asking for "proof", but what you're really saying is "I refuse to believe it, despite the mounting evidence".

Can you prove that "bethrothed to be married" means "the husband and wife are 100% guaranteed to have sex"? PROVE IT! You can't. Even in our modern age, there are sexless marriages due to medical reasons (for instance). This was moreso in the ancient world, when an older man would often marry a younger girl as a "patron" to provide for her financially, but there would be no exchange of "marital relations".

Because that seems to be the crux of your argument in the face of - quite honestly - some information that is making you look silly in this discussion.

@ Thekla

I wouldn't go as far to say that this is an issue of feminism, though one thing you said (to the effect of "men assume they deserve to have sex") is very true. There is an assumption here that because Mary was married, she had sex. Every single other argument in this thread is hinged on that assumption, as if it is a simple fact. But anyone with a cursory education into the practices of ancient cultures (including the Jews) knows that a "sexless marriage" was not the norm, but it was also not unheard of. The concept of a woman taking a vow of chastity even WITHIN marriage rubs against our own cultural sensibilities, and yet when asked to substantiate why a woman remaining a virgin within a marriage is "wrong" or "incorrect", we can come up with no explanation.

You want to know the issue? It's indoctrinated rebellion. We have been raised to intellectually rebel. The Catholic church teaches Mary was a virgin? BAH, of course she wasn't! The Orthodox venerate icons? BAH, idol worship! We have been trained from infancy to reject the "establishment", reject that which is "old", that which is "tradition". The intellect (and the conclusions it draws) is - OF COURSE - of far more value than those silly traditions. At least, so the thinking goes.

.

Thekla said:

This is not about anyone being offended re: statements about someone's private life; about whether or not someone has had sex.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

The Dogma of Mary Had no Sex EVER is about sex.
And it is about someone.


Should we talk about how often you have sex?
And will have sex up to and including the moment of your death?
Is that, too, a matter of highest importance for all to know?
Does it matter, at all, if what is said about you in THIS regard is true?

Thekla said:

fter all, it is the Holy Scriptures that makes statements about Mary's private sex life; it is stated in the Bible that Mary is virgin.

Click to expand...

MARY said that she was a virgin at the Annunciation.
The reason seems to be the expectation that the Messiah would be so conceived.
If YOU tell me that you will have no sex EVER - I'll believe you. But so far, you haven't told us anything about how often you have and will have sex up to and including the moment of your death.


No, the Bible says NOTHING about how often Mary did - or did not - have sex during her time on earth prior to Her death (or is it undeath, what is the EO teaching on that).

Thekla said:

This is about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term).

Click to expand...

Absurd.


There are only two (maybe 3) denominations on the planet, in all of history (out of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist) that have ANY view on how often Mary did (or did not) have sex after Jesus was born, or anything AT ALL about the private matters of the marital relations of Mary and Jospeh. NOTHING. It's the RCC and EOC that insist THIS issue of sex among them is a matter of highest important for all to know! It is those that insist that it is a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The enormous focus, the gigantic interest in THIS is found solely in two (or three) denominations - yours among them.


You trying to turn the tables and to suggest this is a feminist issue is absurd. And does NOTHING to provide the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Thekla said:

This tendency is extended to an offense at women expressing themselves. When what a woman states is twisted, ignored, denied. It has happened amply in this thread -- statements made by women are perhaps not even read, as summaries of what is posted skip the point being made, or is changed away from what has actually been said. Like refusing to respect what Mary has said for herself.

In fact, you have repeatedly refused or failed to respond directly to what I post.

Click to expand...

I have responded to any and all efforts to confirm to that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I've not responded to your irrelevant comments such as that I must have some male hang ups about men getting their way in bed and that's why I have no opinion on how often Mary had sex and that's why I'm asking why YOU (not I) think that how often couples have sex is SUCH a very, very important issue.

This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex.

Click to expand...

Ah. Your position is suddenly coming into clear focus.
For you, Mary is a feminist hero.
Rejecting her husband's love.
And THAT documents that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Or (perhaps far more important) makes it irrelevant whether it's true or not - it is to be embraced by feminists everywhere?









.

A Person is not just a body. A virtue or a sin for that matter involves more than just the physical body, it involves the whole person. You are going to have to develop your argument a great deal if you want it to be remotely credible.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.

The Dogma of Mary Had no Sex EVER is about sex.
And it is about someone.

Click to expand...

So is the Biblical statement that she was a virgin.

Should we talk about how often you have sex?
And will have sex up to and including the moment of your death?
Is that, too, a matter of highest importance for all to know?
Does it matter, at all, if what is said about you in THIS regard is true?

Click to expand...

You already tried; you've asked me before.

MARY said that she was a virgin at the Annunciation.
The reason seems to be the expectation that the Messiah would be so conceived.
If YOU tell me that you will have no sex EVER - I'll believe you. But so far, you haven't told us anything about how often you have and will have sex up to and including the moment of your death.

Click to expand...

Okey dokey.

No, the Bible says NOTHING about how often Mary did - or did not - have sex during her time on earth prior to Her death (or is it undeath, what is the EO teaching on that).

Click to expand...

Sure it does. It states she was a virgin -- the term is about sex, Josiah.

Absurd.

Click to expand...

Sure.

There are only two (maybe 3) denominations on the planet, in all of history (out of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist) that have ANY view on how often Mary did (or did not) have sex after Jesus was born, or anything AT ALL about the private matters of the marital relations of Mary and Jospeh. NOTHING. It's the RCC and EOC that insist THIS issue of sex among them is a matter of highest important for all to know! It is those that insist that it is a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The enormous focus, the gigantic interest in THIS is found solely in two (or three) denominations - yours among them.

Click to expand...

Whatever you say.

You trying to turn the tables and to suggest this is a feminist issue is absurd. And does NOTHING to provide the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Click to expand...

Okey dokey.

I have responded to any and all efforts to confirm to that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I've not responded to your irrelevant comments such as that I must have some male hang ups about men getting their way in bed and that's why I have no opinion on how often Mary had sex and that's why I'm asking why YOU (not I) think that how often couples have sex is SUCH a very, very important issue.

Click to expand...

Wow; "sex" needs to be in a bolded font

I don't think repeating oneself as a "response" to a different questions (with dissimilar content and nuance) is a response at all.

It's a failure to engage, perhaps as a function of disrespect or a problem with comprehension.

Ah. Your position is suddenly coming into clear focus.
For you, Mary is a feminist hero.
Rejecting her husband's love.
And THAT documents that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Or (perhaps far more important) makes it irrelevant whether it's true or not - it is to be embraced by feminists everywhere?

Click to expand...

Yeah right, Josiah.

Where's the argument to support your opinion

Any challenge you can't answer is now a "feminist" assault ?
Kinda cute

.

Thekla said:

This is about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term).


This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex.



.

Click to expand...

Ah. Your position is suddenly coming into clear focus.
For you, Mary is a feminist hero.
Rejecting her husband's love.

And THAT documents that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

So is the Biblical statement that she was a virgin.

Click to expand...

Yes, MARY said she was a virgin at that point. She never said, "I will have no sex ever." Nor does any Scripture. And we have NO evidence (at least that you will publicly share) that Jesus or ANY Apostle or ANYONE who ever so much as could have met Mary during Her entire time on earth ever said this.

It may be that Her virginity at the time of the Incarnation and birth of Jesus matters because of the prophecy and understanding that the Messiah would be BORN of a virgin. Perhaps the same reason why we are told He was born in Bethlehem. But are we told that She DIED a virgin? Are we told that She had no sex EVER? By Mary? By any biblical penmen? By Jesus? By any Apostle? By ANYONE who knew Mary or Joseph? By ANYONE AT ALL in the First Century?

But you have now stated your position. It's a feminist one. This dogma is about men being refused sex. Got it. MUCH has now come into focus.






.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.






I disagree.

The Dogma of Mary Had no Sex EVER is about sex.
And it is about someone.


Should we talk about how often you have sex?
And will have sex up to and including the moment of your death?
Is that, too, a matter of highest importance for all to know?
Does it matter, at all, if what is said about you in THIS regard is true?








MARY said that she was a virgin at the Annunciation.
The reason seems to be the expectation that the Messiah would be so conceived.
If YOU tell me that you will have no sex EVER - I'll believe you. But so far, you haven't told us anything about how often you have and will have sex up to and including the moment of your death.


No, the Bible says NOTHING about how often Mary did - or did not - have sex during her time on earth prior to Her death (or is it undeath, what is the EO teaching on that).











Absurd.


There are only two (maybe 3) denominations on the planet, in all of history (out of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist) that have ANY view on how often Mary did (or did not) have sex after Jesus was born, or anything AT ALL about the private matters of the marital relations of Mary and Jospeh. NOTHING. It's the RCC and EOC that insist THIS issue of sex among them is a matter of highest important for all to know! It is those that insist that it is a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The enormous focus, the gigantic interest in THIS is found solely in two (or three) denominations - yours among them.


You trying to turn the tables and to suggest this is a feminist issue is absurd. And does NOTHING to provide the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.











I have responded to any and all efforts to confirm to that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I've not responded to your irrelevant comments such as that I must have some male hang ups about men getting their way in bed and that's why I have no opinion on how often Mary had sex and that's why I'm asking why YOU (not I) think that how often couples have sex is SUCH a very, very important issue.













Ah. Your position is suddenly coming into clear focus.
For you, Mary is a feminist hero.
Rejecting her husband's love.
And THAT documents that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Or (perhaps far more important) makes it irrelevant whether it's true or not - it is to be embraced by feminists everywhere?









.

Click to expand...

It is a much a speculation... Where is the evidence she did not? If you have no position then why you are trying so hard to tell us that our position is wrong? I am truly confused here. What harm you see in believing in either or? You seem to support that we should have no opinion on the matter (correct me if I am wrong) so you should not be concerned for the ones who either believe or not believe as both are "right"...if we follow a logical reasoning

CaliforniaJosiah said:

And we have NO evidence (at least that you will publicly share) that Jesus or ANY Apostle or ANYONE who ever so much as could have met Mary during Her entire time on earth ever said this.

[...]By ANYONE AT ALL in the First Century?

Click to expand...

Why is it so dang important to you that someone from the first century said this?

The Bible sitting on your shelf came from the 4th century, and the Book of Concord sitting next to it came from the 16th century.

Of course, I'm sure you - like many Lutherans - will dismiss what I say with a simple "but our teachings come from the Bible". Really? You mean...the Bible that was made in the 4th century? You mean...the Bible that was formed by a unified church that believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.

Ah. Your position is suddenly coming into clear focus.
For you, Mary is a feminist hero.
Rejecting her husband's love.

And THAT documents that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Yes, MARY said she was a virgin at that point. She never said, "I will have no sex ever." Nor does any Scripture. And we have NO evidence (at least that you will publicly share) that Jesus or ANY Apostle or ANYONE who ever so much as could have met Mary during Her entire time on earth ever said this.

It may be that Her virginity at the time of the Incarnation and birth of Jesus matters because of the prophecy and understanding that the Messiah would be BORN of a virgin. Perhaps the same reason why we are told He was born in Bethlehem. But are we told that She DIED a virgin? Are we told that She had no sex EVER? By Mary? By any biblical penmen? By Jesus? By any Apostle? By ANYONE who knew Mary or Joseph? By ANYONE AT ALL in the First Century?

But you have now stated your position. It's a feminist one. This dogma is about men being refused sex. Got it. MUCH has now come into focus.

Click to expand...

Whatever you say, Josiah.

Cogent argument is required to support a claim.

See what I bolded in the last paragraph you posted ?

This isn't an issue of "feminism".
I'm not a feminist
I'm a stay at home mom with 6 kids.

You claim to speak for me; you've replaced what I have said with your inaccurate characterization of the actual content.

It's about the fear of letting people speak for themselves.

It's about comprehension.

It's about not listening, Josiah.

Philothei said:

It is a much a speculation... Where is the evidence she did not?

Click to expand...

I agree. There is "much speculation."


Where IS the evidence that She never once shared loving marital intimacies with Joseph? That She DIED having never had sex ever?
I agree: Where is the evidence?

why you are trying so hard to tell us that our position is wrong?

Click to expand...

Where, pray tell, did I EVER say the view is wrong?


YOU say that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Assuming Truth matters to you (at least a little) - although I never got an answer to that from any RCC or EOC here, and assuming that not gossiping matters - then the question is valid, isn't it? The same question Catholics (at least) ask when some dogma is presented that their denomination doesn't teach - "where's the confirmation?"

I am truly confused here. What harm you see in believing in either or?

Click to expand...

YOU are the one that does, not me! I have no view about Her sex life after Jesus was born. Of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insists exist, I know of only the RCC and EOC (2 denominations) that have Dogma on this issue of Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. Dogma declares that it is a matter of highest importance. To deny dogma is to be a heretic, and in the words of my Catholic priest, "Josiah - there are no heretics in heaven." YOU see harm in what is or is not affirmed here to the very highest level possible - NO Protestant does. Dogma is a "line in the sand," a declaration of what MUST and what MUST NOT be believed - to the highest level possible. I'm truly confused here. If it doesn't matter - one way or the other - why is it dogma? Is the view of the EOC that it doesn't matter at all what is believed in this regard? It does "no harm" either way - whether She had sex 5000 times or no times?



If someone here at CF were to post, "President Obama and Hilary Clinton have a 'love child' together - and this is a matter of highest importance for all to know and greatest certainty of Truth." I wonder (I honestly do) what you as a Staff member would think of that? Would you think documentation (beyond the opinion of those with the opinion) would be need? Could this be rude? Could it be flaming toward Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton? Or would you post, "What harm is there here - why should it matter what people say and post about Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton?" Well, my sister, St Mary is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more important and revered than President Obama or Secretary Clinton - whatever you might think in my illustration is infinitely MORE the case with Mary. But yes - if you say, "it doesn't matter at all what is said about President Obama or Secretary Clinton - about sex or ANYTHING - and there's never a need for documentation - then I understand your point.

you should not be concerned for the ones who either believe or not believe as both are "right"...if we follow a logical reasoning

Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that because I don't yet have an opinion that ergo truth is entirely irrelevant to me. You're mistaken.


If I thought Mary doesn't matter, if I thought truth doesn't matter, if I thought that disputed Dogma among Christians doesn't matter, I never would have posted in this thread.






.

.



Originally Posted by Thekla


You made your point crystal clear.





.