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.
My theory is that that PV dogma is based on unsubstantiated rumor.why can't those who make this demand authenticate their own theory and speculation on the matter (not to mention the NT they use) ?
Yes, I keep making it easier and easier and yet, NOTHING.
If you want to discuss the NT canon of books, we can do that - although not in this forum. But, friend, where did I ever post that everyone always accepted the 27 books that we now do? The NT books didn't even always exist; John may not have penned the books associated with him until the 90's - so OBVIOUSLY they were not always accepted. But the diversions, evasions and "lets discuss ANYTHING but the subject at hand" has been going on for for a very, very long time. And friend, I'm just responding to what is stated by our Catholic and Orthodox friends, just asking for some substantiation (and not much) for the statements of fact that are made. And being ever so patient for the reply....
coffee is good, thanksMy theory is that that PV dogma is based on unsubstantiated rumor.
Isn't it?
BTW, good morning everyone. I hope your coffee is as good as mine.
My theory is that that PV dogma is based on unsubstantiated rumor.
Isn't it?
BTW, good morning everyone. I hope your coffee is as good as mine.
prove itEven without hostile or uninvested interest witness, the NT offers written testimony of facts.
Marian PV dogma does not.
- if you consult a Koine Greek dictionary, you will find the meaning is not clearly "blood sibling"Well when we see those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus and His family they do mention brothers and even names them and also sisters. Now before you go and say they may be cousins or relatives lets look at Paul when He states that Junais and Andronicus who are his kinsmen. Meaning realatives.
Ok.prove it
Rick,
the EO/OO/RC are persistently asked to authenticate their teaching on the ever-virginity of Mary; why can't those who make this demand authenticate their own theory and speculation on the matter (not to mention the NT they use) ?
....the RCC which maintains that it not only is a dogma, but this dogma must be embraced and believed as absolute fact in order for a person to gain salvation.....
I think the point that CJ and others including myself have been making is that Protestants do not hold any dogma on the matter. They can, and do, hold various theories and speculations, which are properly called pious opinions, but do not hold any dogmatic view. This is in contrast to the RCC which maintains that it not only is a dogma, but this dogma must be embraced and believed as absolute fact in order for a person to gain salvation.
It seems to me that, if this dogma is crucial to my salvation, my friends in the RCC would be able to provide some apologetic evidence for it. Thus far the only "evidence" that has been provided is that a lot of people have believed this for a very long time, although there is no evidence of anyone believing this, much less positing the notion, prior to the third century.
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
Marian PV dogma does not.
the NT offers written testimony of facts:
Matt1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
The above is written testimony of a fact.
It is of course arguable as to its truth, as is everything, but it is a written statement of a known fact.
require the same of your facts above, beyond a source that begs the question.Marian PV dogma does not:
Traditionaly, proving a negative isn't expected to be possible.
If PV advocates had a scrap of written testimony as to a fact or even a fact-based rumor rather than extrapolation from supposedly implicit references, it would be cited with fanfare and the controversy would shift from the plausibility of the theory to the believability of the fact.
If the fact was testified of in the accepted canon, it would be accepted at least to the degree of ending any argument about it being fact.
Advocates of the PV tradition have had every opportunity to present fact-based information, but all I've seen is substantiaton of the existence of the belief and explanation for the basis of belief, but no reference or citation of any directly pertinent facts.
If that leaves you feeling unsatisfide, then at least you know how I feel about having a reason to believe in Mary's PV.
Greetings Kath. How come you had to put it 2 different waysThat is NOT true. The Church - The Catholic Church, not "RCC", thank you very much - does not teach that the only way to salvation is to accept this dogma. That is a misrepresentation, and I respectfully request that you retract it.
if the above are facts, then they can be verified through extra-Biblical historical references that are verifiable. Using the Bible to verify the Bible is begging the question.
They are "Biblical facts". We're not asking the Bible to verify the Bible because we both agree the Bible is an acceptable resource.
It is a written form we both trust and it addresses facts. Tradition hasn't addressed any facts regardless of any standard of measure. So no questions at all are being begged.require the same of your facts above, beyond a source that begs the question.
The PV belief is total conjecture. No corroborating facts are available.
I'm not requiring written evidence.further, to require such evidence of a largely oral culture is "imperialistic" (like the requirement of deed title for land held for centuries by community/familial recount in order to prove ownership when deed/title was newly introduced but was not the standard for proof of ownership previously).
I'm only asking for PV facts.
Traditions supplies beliefs & reasons for PV, but nothing factual.
It's like fantasy for fantasy's sake.
as above; further, you are trying to "grandfather in" a more recent method of verification. And again, apply the same standard to proving the authenticity of your NT.
Not realy. I'm not legislating anything, this is just discussion and the PV belief won't gain or lose any steam over it. I'm not even addressing authenticity. I have limited this to plausability. A pertinent fact would go miles toward offering plausability.
The NT books contain facts & themes that resonate with & evolve out of OT books. Facts that are referenceable, citeable, and many of which have been archeologicaly proven as accurate.You can't prove the veracity of your NT. And it was accepted and passed on based on the very standard you decry as inadequate.
I'm not asking for archeological evidence or even anything written authenticaly or not. Just facts. Where are they? They would provide a structural integrity to the belief that theological theories alone can't.
,,,It seems to me that, if this dogma is crucial to my salvation, my friends in the RCC would be able to provide some apologetic evidence for it...
That is NOT true. The Church - The Catholic Church, not "RCC", thank you very much - does not teach that the only way to salvation is to accept this dogma. That is a misrepresentation, and I respectfully request that you retract it.
I am only requesting that an equal standard be applied to both "sides"; ie. that you provide authentication for the NT. As explained, we accept the NT as part of Tradition; that is its authentication. We hold the teaching of ever-virginity of Mary as part of Tradition. A standard that cannot be met by your "side" (proof of the authenticity of the present text of the NT) can hardly be required of our "side". We are persistently reminded here that Tradition is "not enough". Again, if Tradition is not enough, then the same standard should be applied to your own beliefs (re: the NT as an example).
I guess I haven't been clear:through what authentication process does the Bible become acceptable to you ?They are "Biblical facts". We're not asking the Bible to verify the Bible because we both agree the Bible is an acceptable resource.
It is a written form we both trust and it addresses facts. Tradition hasn't addressed any facts regardless of any standard of measure. So no questions at all are being begged.
The PV belief is total conjecture. No corroborating facts are available.
I'm not requiring written evidence.
I'm only asking for PV facts.
Traditions supplies beliefs & reasons for PV, but nothing factual.
It's like fantasy for fantasy's sake.
Not realy. I'm not legislating anything, this is just discussion and the PV belief won't gain or lose any steam over it. I'm not even addressing authenticity. I have limited this to plausability. A pertinent fact would go miles toward offering plausability.
The NT books contain facts & themes that resonate with & evolve out of OT books. Facts that are referenceable, citeable, and many of which have been archeologicaly proven as accurate.
I'm not asking for archeological evidence or even anything written authenticaly or not. Just facts. Where are they? They would provide a structural integrity to the belief that theological theories alone can't.
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?