Search results

Much or your argument is based on your opinions – not established fact. The Protoevangelium doesn’t official declare some of the intentions or decisions of the characters involved. Granted – some of these things are implied – but they ARE implied, nonetheless. Some of what we beliueve about...

I never stated that Mary’s service to the Temple was a “priestly” function. As for Anna being a widow and not a virgin, a vow of chastity can be made at ANY point in a person’s like. Just as a widow can become a nun and take that vow – so could Anna. Again – you keep insisting that I am...

No – that is not the question. It is NOT for each individual to decide what they think Tradition ids. Jesus gave supreme earthly Authority to His Church – that whatever it declares on earth will be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:). He said that whoever listens to or rejects His Church – they...

Apparently, you haven’t been reading the posts. I NEVER made the argument that this was inspired Scripture. I referred to it as a 2nd century document. WRONG. The Protoevangelium’s claim that Mary was a consecrated servant/virgin of the Temple is not without precedent. Samuel was dedicated...

That just it – Oral Tradition does NOT require written documentation. Your refusal to accept this Tradition tells me that you simply don’t believe in Oral Tradition. You don't even understand what it is. The Protoevangelium states that Mary was a consecrated virgin of the Temple. This is a...

As I indicated before - the Protoevangelium of Jame is a 2nd century document that explains Mary’s early life and how the birth of Jesus came about. It is this document that gives us the names of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne. It explains how Mary was a consecrated virgin in the Temple, like...

Once again – ORAL Tradition does not require written documentation. Either you accept it or you don’t – and it appears that you don’t. However, the earliest reference that I know of is the Protoevangelium of James (circa 150 AD).

I can’t pin-point a date for you because that’s NOT how Tradition works. Sacred Tradition developed from the teachings of the Apostles. This is evidenced by Pauls instruction to the Thessalonians: 2 Thess 2:15 "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL...

We’ve had this “Tradition” argument before. The fact is that you DON’T adhere to Tradition. If you did – you would know ORAL Tradition and Scripture are TWO different expressions of God’s word and will. One is written and one is spoken – yet they are BOTH authoritative. A few examples of Oral...

This isn’t about a “time frame”. It’s about whether the use of “until” demands a subsequent action or event. ALL of the verses I submitted illustrate that it doesn’t.

You’re right – this fact ALONE is not sufficient evidence. However, when coupled with 2000 years of constant, living Tradition, the case is bolstered. The doctrine that Mary had other children isn't even as old as the Protestant Revolt. As I indicated earlier - your Protestant Fathers ALL...

And what do you do with the death and burial of Moses? Even though Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death - Deut. 34:6 explicitly states: “And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present...

I’m not using “until” in Matt. 1:25 to prove Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. I’m using it to illustrate that it does not always carry the connotation of being followed by a subsequent action. Bery often in Scripture, “until” carries a connotation of finality. Frankly, it’s the total absence of...

Yes, I did. You invoked Matt. 1:25 as possible proof that Joseph and Mary had other children. I simply showed that the word "until" (heos) doesn't always point to a subsequant consequence.

That;s a "choice" that YOU'VE made. It's NOT automatically inferred by the text. Sayig that Mary and Joseph had marital relations is simply NOT supported by Scripture. As a matter of fact - ALL of yourr Protestant Fathers rejected this idead. It only came into popular belief in the last few...

Soooo, you forbid Matthew from using ANY other connotation of the word “until”, based on hi usages of it in other verses? That doesn't make much sense. For example - his use of “Adelphos” means uterine brother in one verse – and soothing completely different in other verses (Matt. 18:35, Matt...

Because there's NO Scripural or extra-Biblical reason NOT to . . .

WRONG. It doesn’t need to be proven because it is THERE in Scripture. My argument has never been to prove what the Scripture say are “true”. MY argument all along has been that THIS is what Scripture says about itself. This is NOT up pfor debate, as 2 Tim. 3:16 makes this claim clearly. You’re...

This is a cowardly "defense" of your weak position.

Ummmm - NOT so fast ,. . . This “proof” against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity is based on the word “until”. Matt. 1:25 says: "...but kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Did Mary have other children after Jesus? the Bible does NOT support...