T
Thekla
Guest
But Mary wasn't silent: she reported this to Gabriel, and Luke made record of it.
Upvote
0
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.
[/color]
Thus, the "Protestant perspective" is to be silent on this, just as Christ and God's Scripture are.
.
If Christ came to save all don't you think that his mother who is his closest relative through his incarnation is already protected????
I am not the one who inserted commonalities with the LDS into the discussion ..interesting you think it is relevant when you discuss for your purpose, and a diversion when others do.Ever more diversions...
Fair and generous would be not ‘playing with words’ the way you do. Here’s your logic.Wrong. I have bent over backwards on this, stating that I'll let YOU establish what is and is not authoritative. The Catholics indicated that Scripture is: okay, they permit noncatholics to look to Scripture so obviously they regard Scripture as authoritaitve. Now, you don't recognize denominational Tradition as Authoritative when I use it, so clearly you don't regard that as Authoritative - okay, I won't either then. You don't recognize my interpretation of verses, OT and NT as Authoritative so obviously you don't regard individual (or denominational) interpretation as Authoritative - okay, so I won't either. I'm just following the Catholic's lead, allowing Catholics to state what is and is not Authoritative. It has been made clear as can be that denominational traditions, interpretations and declarations are not Authoritative (you reject such consistently) and I'll abide by that same rubric - which means your denomination's traditions, interpretations and declarations are not authoritative. Fine. So, I think that leaves us with Scripture and history. You don't have any Scripture (just your own denomination's INTERPRETATION of it), so that leaves us with history. But you don't seem to have anything there either, not within centuries of Mary's death. But, I'm OBVIOUSLY supremely patient and I AM waiting. Again, I'll accept ANY Authority that YOU regard as valid for other Christians, I don't know how to be more fair. Or generous.
Youve consistently stated that you believe she could have been ever-virgin and have no position on the matter. So assume for a moment she was. There certainly must have been a reason. So while were speculating, lets also consider the POSSIBILITY that there is also a significant POSSIBILITY for hurt, pain or offense if billions of people tell the rest of the world that reason wasnt important at all. No consequence worth noting didnt really matter in the great scheme of things. What Im saying is that there is a POTENTIAL for pain Im not remotely stating that it DOES hurt or offend her.If you think there is a significant POSSIBILITY for hurt, pain or offense if one billion people told the rest of the world as a matter of highest importance how often you have sex with your spouse - and to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thereby in question, then there is a significant POSSIBILITY for the same toward Mary. And frankly, I love Mary a lot more than I love you (take nothing negative there, I love her more than I love me, too). What I've been saying is that there is a POTENTIAL for pain, I've never remotely stated that it DOES hurt or offend Her.
.
Here again, lets not even so subtly knock those who would believe that church councils are authoritative by defining such as those spreading stories, and then continue with the implication that your concern for Mary is therefore greater . Ive asked you before, and I will continue to ask please respect the standards of others as to what constitutes authoritative even if you disagree. And please do not judge the concern of others for Mary by your self-defined standard of what is most caring.
You are willing to accept it as sufficient substantiation and authorization that those spreading the story say it's true. Ironically, this is a rubric you consistent reject and yet you are defending it above all else. Okay. Defending that seems of utmost importance to you. The sacred heart of Our Lady is more important to me.
How can you say these things are lies one minute and then claim to have no position the next?[/color]
Ah, then to you it doesn't matter WHAT is said about Her. Okay. Obviously you disagree with the RCC that says it's HERESY to deny that Mary Had No Sex Ever, and it's fine with you that people tell the most horrible of offensive lies about your mother, your spouse, and yes above all Our Lady - because "she's protected." Okay. Gotcha.
You are continuing to prove the point of my post (if you read it).
.
uh, no. that is not how it reads.Please explain then how Mary's response makes any sense at all? She obviously knew how one conceives a child (by knowing a man), and assumes this is what the angel is referring to (knowing a man). It is clear she assumes this is the method of conception the angel is talking about. The angel tells her she will conceive a child in the future. You say she was betrothed to a man she was planning in the near future to 'know'. If that is the case, she would have logically assumed the angel was speaking about conceiving a child with the man she was about to 'know'. The fact that she is currently a virgin has no implication at all to the conversation as you interpret it, so why was that her response?
really. Funny, that sounds awfully like dishonesty.That must be a Lutheran Dogma, because the CC has no such Dogma.
Peace
whether you haven't or not is irrelevant. I said Catholics do. And they do.I have never sneered at the LDS, so please stop making such accusations.
lets see if they are.Since you and CJ seem so adamant about bringing them and 'similarities' into the discussion however, let's remember your own views which are consistent to theirs
nope... don't believe this.the Holy Spirit failed to keep the gates of hell from prevailing against the church,
nope... don't believe this.it fell into apostasy
nope.... don't believe this.and you are now the reformed, restored, however you want to say it church Jesus established,
nope... don't believe this.whether you believe it is visible or invisible, and with the absolutely infallible understanding of what is authoritative revelation.
let's be honest. Catholic teachings don't regularly conflict. They are either completely unrelated, or fall under the "this is the teaching" and "the proof is because we say it's true."Fair would be examining two Catholic teachings to see if they're in conflict, not your views and a Catholic teaching to determine if Catholic teachings conflict. I suppose thats too much to ask?
Um, it is exactly how it reads. The angel didn't say 'you are going to have a child' as you've paraphrased, which leaves the meaning open that Mary may have already conceived, which would then make sense that she would ask "how, since I am a virgin". The angel said -- you will conceive. No question that Mary is not currently pregnant, no doubt that the angel is speaking of future conception, and even though Mary is betrothed to Joseph she is confused as to how this future conception is going to occur, because she is a virgin.uh, no. that is not how it reads.
"you're going to have a kid."
"pardon? I'm a virgin."
the angel didn't give a timeline. The angel said, you're going to have a child. pardon me for pointing out the obvious: walk up to an engaged woman. (one who isn't going to have sex with her husband until after marriage, for sake of arguement.) tell her she's going to have a kid.
take a picture of the puzzled look on her face.
you are forcing a meaning that doesn't exist.
And who are you accountable to for your beliefs?let's be honest. Catholic teachings don't regularly conflict. They are either completely unrelated, or fall under the "this is the teaching" and "the proof is because we say it's true."
when you have zero accountability, anything can be true without conflict.
scripture. but then, you knew that.And who are you accountable to for your beliefs?
Not a surprising answer, but I personally would have said God. To state that anyone has 'no accountability' denies that all are subject to and accountable to God, and will be judged accordingly though.scripture. but then, you knew that.
I thought you just said the angel didn't give a 'timeline'. Now you say oh, it's 'immediate'.an immediate future. it isn't some pie in the sky by and by type of statement. Only one who has to support a doctrine regarding Mary's lack of sex would have to read it any other way.
I thought you just said the angel didn't give a 'timeline'. Now you say oh, it's 'immediate'.
Sorry, but it's a clear reference to a future conception. If I were an engaged young woman waiting to have sex until marriage, and somebody told me that 'you will have a baby', I would never have responded, "How will that happen -- I'm a virgin". Only one who has to deny a doctrine regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary would have to read it any other way.
No I don't. You have no basis for that statement at all.yes, I'm accountable to God. Don't try to twist what I'm saying.
basically put, you have beliefs, that rest on "because we say so." that lacks accountability.
but we're getting off topic.
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?