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.
Fool Satan? Please.. God does not need to fool anyone.. He is God
No need to take a patronizing tone, mam'.quote=Philothei;yeah sure sure whatever you say..
Because "Trinity" is a description of the belief and my description of a belief doesn't need to be in the scripture for me to believe it, just good reason to believe it, like the three distinct persons being present in one place at one time (JC's baptism). No such scriptural evidence is present for Mary's PV, so it amounts to rumor.My point is why would you believe it if it is not?
Sure it does. It proves the dogma is pure fantasy.Whether it is "imaginative speculation" does not prove anything...
...And it would be a witness against you. It would prove your irrationality on the subject so advise you don't.I can say the same about Trinity...
So then you have a such a problem with me that you can't even accept truth from me?I will not give up anything that testifies to falshood just because you are telling it so...
I proved what I said more than once & you continue to deny it and I haven't let it alone yet you say I did. We have a word to describe people who do that.And you still cannot prove it... so you let it alone.
Right off the bat you lump a diverse group together... I sense "smear tactic"...Protestants always
...yep, there's the smear...set those two double standards
The standard for both the Trinity & PV is scriptural evidence. No double standard there. Your attempt to distract is ineffective.with the Trinity and the canon of the Bible...
I would say that about PV, but the Trinity is illustrated explicitly at Jesus' baptism. It sounds like you are simply parroting objections you don't realy understand.Those two who cannot support since there are no where in the Bible to be found....
Thank you for your usual erudite response.
I believe that you have made my point that there are no direct references in the Bible regarding the marital life of Mary and Joseph. It would be impossible for anyone to read into your verses from Ezekiel the meanings which you ascribe to it without forcing the dogma of EV through the eye (or gate) of the needle. There is no direct mention of Mary, virgins, sex, progeny, intercourse, or anything else related to the meaning which you apply to these verses. If "This is the scriptural basis - like or not. And it has been for a very long time!" then we are in agreement that there is no directscriptural basis for your belief,
When coupled with supporting data like the Protoevangelium, then it's very clear.
This is attested to through the ages as the Truth, as shown in my last post - from the 1st century until present.
I don't have a problem with God thwarting satans plans.. I DO have a problem with people try to tell me God deceives people.wow. i really never would have imagined that people would have a problem with God thwarting Satan's plans ... guess it takes all kinds of leaps just to downplay the Mother of our Lord.
I don't have a problem with God thwarting satans plans.. I DO have a problem with people try to tell me God deceives people.
The text shows that when Gabriel summoned Mary that she was not married as of yet.. This is why she states she was not knowing a man. It is in the presense text. the verb to know (??????? gin?sk?) is in the present active indicative If God wanted to hide Mary from men why was it prophecied that this was going to happen. You guys make no sense..
Read the whole context of the whole counsel of Gods written word. I have given examples of Paul speaking of Relatives and Paul speaking of brother..
How without speculation, does her asking Gabriel how she will give birth get projected into a life long committment to chastity? Remember she was espoused to Joseph before Gabriel showed up.
Is the tense of one word what you base your conclusion about a life long committment to chastity? Seems like a leap AND a stretch.
The words say that Mary was a virgin at the Announciation.
There are no words saying that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin.
You seem to constantly confuse the interpretation of 3 denominations with what Luke penned by inspiration, you are simply imposing and imputing what you WISH God had caused Luke to pen with what He actually did.
.
Don't hold your breath, we've been waiting for centuries....
I'd add, even giving the specific quote of ANYONE (even a single heretic) who clearly knew Mary and who wrote during her lifetime that she was a PERPETUAL Virgin. We have heretics (many, many of them) who knew Joseph Smith and who wrote during his lifetime that all the claims about him were true - and this our Catholic and Orthodox friends reject as inadequate substantiation, so let's have at least much LESS to substantiate this DOGMA of Mary as a Perpetual Virgin. If not from God in Scripture, then from someone - anyone - who clearly knew her and clearly states that she was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.
Why does this matter?
1. Because she's our Mother and we love, adore, esteem and venerate her.
2. Because truth matters; to spread falsehood is NOT "loving" (the issue of this thread) NO MATTER HOW WELL INTENDED.
3. Because Catholics reject as inadequate far, far, far better substantiation than what has been offered here to support this DOGMA.
"Rumor." An unsubstantiated popularly held story or report. According to the Catholic Catechism, to spread a rumor is a sin and thus UNloving. Thus, the singular issue here is this: Is this report substantiated in a manner the RCC or EO itself accepts as valid and sufficient for a DOGMA?
Yes, we're waiting.
And waiting.
And waiting.
Because love and respect MATTER, especially when speaking of Our Mother, Our Blessed Lady.
.
.
They interpret this to mean, I have taken a vow never to know a man. This eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 c. 394)
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?