Search results

This isn’t about Catholic doctrine — it’s about what John actually wrote. John explicitly identifies Lazarus and Martha's sister, Mary, as “the one who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair” (John 11:2) before narrating the Bethany anointing in John 12. The only earlier hair‑wiping...

I don't deny that Christians have responsibilities beyond evangelism or that citizens have obligations toward maintaining civil order. What I'm questioning is the assumption that maintaining order requires supporting execution. A state can maintain order through imprisonment, restraint...

If I failed to make my case, why did your position change from two anointings, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four, while your interpretation of John 11:2 changed multiple times and earlier posts were later edited to reflect newer positions?

The topic is about whether the repentant woman, Lazarus’s sister, Mary, and Mary Magdalene are the same woman. Your claim that “we did not start out talking about every anointing” is not accurate. In my opening post, I referenced the two anointings directly relevant to the identity question...

I think part of our disagreement comes from talking about two different levels of judgment. You’re focusing on the state’s responsibility to maintain order; I’m talking about the Christian responsibility to imitate God’s heart toward the sinner. Those aren’t the same thing, and Scripture treats...

Imprisonment or death is not what God wants to happen to her though. If you're going to claim to follow Him, then you need to want to do His will: which is to see to the healing and conversion of souls. Christian moral theology never treats the act alone as the whole story. God judges both the...

Christians who speak and act uncharitably grieve God the most.

Praise God she's alive. It was God's Will for her to live. He always ultimately has control over who lives and dies.

@Grailhunter, here is the documented sequence of your own statements, in order, showing how your position changed from two anointings → three → four, along with your redefinitions of passages you previously grouped together. 1. You began by asserting two anointings. Post #11 (Sept 22): Post...

And its because if you committed to your latest claim of "always four anointings," you'd know the next question would be this: "How can you say you've always argued in the defense of four anointings when you've previously argued two anointings and then three anointings before your latest claim...

That's not an answer to the question. I asked you: In reply, you answered: In reply, I asked: Are you, or are you not? You have argued three different and mutually exclusive positions, and I have quoted each of your statements directly: (a) Non‑specific event: “No specific event...

No, I've created three threads (not four threads) in the past nine weeks (not six weeks). One of them is a textual challenge, the other about Jesus's brothers, and the other about Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany. Are you obsessed with the word "obsessed":

Then why stop at the number four? Why not say a hundred or a thousand threads if you don't think you need to substantiate your claims?

You can say they did. But they didn't show they did. Two different things.

You didn't identify which four threads.

You haven’t changed your mind because you still haven’t understood the premise of the challenge. That misunderstanding led you to address claims I never made, which is why your response wasn’t an answer to the challenge. Once you’re engaging the actual argument rather than the claims you...

Claiming that I’m misunderstanding your position isn’t the same as showing that I am. Until you demonstrate the misunderstanding, your logic remains unsupported and the challenge unaddressed.

Correct: you asked: And I answered directly: In reply to that answer, you asserted that I "avoided" that question, but I clearly didn't. Now you're asking me this question: Your question assumes I’m obsessed with Mary’s virginity. I’m not going to justify a premise that isn’t true. If you...

I didn’t say you claimed Mary didn’t expect future marital relations. I said that your explanation logically requires Her not to expect future conception through Joseph — because you argue that if She had expected future conception, She would not have asked Her question. But your doctrinal...

This challenge has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. It is about testing your position — that Mary expected future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph — against the narrative logic of Luke. The question is whether that position coherently explains Mary’s reaction...