It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[bbyrd009]

So, we have an account of Joseph consummating the marriage after Jesus was born, and we have several testimonies of other progeny of Mary, all which must be dismissed in order to, more or less, allow goddess worship in the back door?

 

[BreadOfLife]

So, we have an account of Joseph consummating the marriage after Jesus was born, and we have several testimonies of other progeny of Mary, all which must be dismissed in order to, more or less, allow goddess worship in the back door?

If you believe that Matt. 1:25 is testimony to Joseph and Mary consummating their marriage - then you have a reading comprehension problem.
You also missed the explanation of "Adelphos".

I suggest you go back and R*E*A*D the last few posts . . .

 

[Stranger]

Nice try - but epic fail.
Actually - it wasn't even a good try. It's just a failure do to poor research.

As I educated you - the SAME Hebrew word (`ad) is used in all of the OT references i presented - and that word means "UNTIL".
Again, you make the beginner's blunder of trying to impose your 21st century English to ancient Hebrew from a culture thousands of years ago.

Your argument is dead on arrival . . .

As for Mary's statement to the Angel - AGAIN, you fail.
Don't believe me?? Look up the Greek.

Finally - you're ignorance of Jewish traditions is astounding for a guy who likes to argue so much.
the term "Firstborn" does NOT imply that there might be another child afterward. "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture simply meant the one who "opens his mother's womb."

Exodus 13:1-2 tells us something important about the firstborn in Israel:

The Lord said to Moses, “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.”
A "Firstborn" child is firstborn from Birth - and NOT by virtue of his mother having more children.

Again - the weight of Scripture, Tradition and linguistics obliterates your anti-Biblical argument . . .

Actually it was a pretty easy list to respond to. And, my Bible wasn't translated in the 21 century.

Forget your answer concerning Mary in (Luke 1:34). No amount of you twisting it will make it say what you want.

Concerning 'firstborn', are there any in Scripture who are called firstborn that don't have others born also?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Because of the overwhelming, corroborative evidence i have presented from Scripture, Tradition, linguistics and history.
All YOU have presented so far are the frustrated ramblings of a guy who wants to believe the exact opposite of what the Church has believed for 2000 years - and you're losing the argument.

You accuse ME of not having any evidence - yet you have presented nothing.

Why did the Early Church UNANIMOUSLY believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary??
Why did the Fathers of the so-called "Reformation" agree with this doctrine?? They were doing everything they could to divorce themselves from the Catholic Church, so why did they ALL believed in this??
Why was YOUR point of view only invented in the last couple of hundred years.??

THAT'S what you have to ask yourself.

Nice speech. No substance.

Only the Romanists have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Church did not. Which men of the Reformation believed in it?

My point of view is the Scriptures point of view. I don't have to do linguistic gymnastics to make them say something they don't.

Another question in a long list you refuse to answer. As I said, unanswered questions answer a lot.

(Matt.1:25) "And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name JESUS." No virginity after that. Makes one wonder why is it so important to have Mary a perpetual virgin, when Scripture teaches otherwise.

Stranger

 

[Mungo]

Nice speech. No substance.

Only the Romanists have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Church did not. Which men of the Reformation believed in it?

Stranger

The Orthodox believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Early Church:

Athanasius
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [inter A.D. 358-362]).

Epiphanius
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only- begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit." (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Epiphanius
"And to holy Mary 'Virgin' is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Panacea Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 374/377]).

Didymus the Blind
"It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 381-392]).

Jerome
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this in order to condemn marriage: for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage. . . . You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary 19 {al. 21} [A.D. 383]).

Augustine
"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

Augustine
"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius
"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary, was born God; and confessing each substance, we accept, in the light of pious faith, that his humanity and his divinity are united inseparably." (Document of Amendment 3 [ca. A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria
"Jesus did not first come into being as a simple man, before the union and communion of God in him; but the Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her child-bearing." (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [ca. A.D. 430]).

Peter Chrysologus
"Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conceiving and the Virgin’s giving birth are just like those of other women? Theirs is of the earth, hers is of heaven. Hers is by divine power, theirs by human weakness. . . . A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains." (Sermons 117 [A.D. 432]).

Leo I
"Christ was begotten in a new kind of nativity, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without concupiscence of paternal flesh, without injury to maternal integrity. . . . His origin is different but his nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained." (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 461]).

Council of Constantinople (553)

“If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.” (Capitual II)

As to the reformers:

[SIZE=11pt]Martin Luther:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]6 p. 510[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt].) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]John Calvin:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Matthew[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] 1:22-25[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt], published 1562.) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Ulrich Zwingli:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.) [/SIZE]

 

[tabletalk]

So, it seems that for the first 300 years after the death of Christ no "church father" said anything about Mary being "ever virgin". Maybe most Christians believed Mary had other children, or maybe it was assumed she did not.

I think the more serious error of the Catholic Church is their teaching of Mary's sinlessness.

 

[Mungo]

So, it seems that for the first 300 years after the death of Christ no "church father" said anything about Mary being "ever virgin". Maybe most Christians believed Mary had other children, or maybe it was assumed she did not.

For the most part the very early Church fathers wrote extensively against heresies (e.g. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr in the second century, and Origen in the 3rd century). If they did not mention the ever virginity of Mary it was probably because it was not a heresy that was being raised. The early heresies tended to be directly about the nature of Christ himself (e.g. Adoptionism and Docetism).

It seems that it was not until the 4th century that this heresy started or at least became noticeable. The writers I quoted were not raising a new teaching but writing against a heretical teaching which contradicted what most Christians believed.

Incidentally, there is a second century book called the Protoevangelium of James witnesses to the early belief that the "brethren" of Jesus were not children of Mary; it presents them as children of St. Joseph from a former marriage. This detail may not be entirely true; it is more possible that they were Joseph's nephews whom he "adopted" after the death of their father, Joseph's brother Cleophas. Yet the Protoevangelium still shows that second century Christians believed that Mary gave birth to Jesus alone.

 

[Mungo]

I think the more serious error of the Catholic Church is their teaching of Mary's sinlessness.

Maybe you do but that is a separate issue.

 

[bbyrd009]

really, it is not; it is the elevation of a human to the status of God, it is goddess worship, the same end as making Mary a lifelong virgin when that is demonstrably not true, so that she might take her place in your Pantheon.

You don't read very well, do you??

I already educated you on this point. The very broad usage of "Adelphos" in Scripture encompasses MANY uses including:
- Uterine brother
- Step sibling
- Cousin
- Uncle
- Brother in law
- Nephew
- Friend
- Neighbor
- Fellow Countryman
- Fellow Believer

ANY one of these other than uterine sibling or fellow believer could be the case with the "Brethren of the Lord".
You're simply throwing up useless road blocks because you've LOST this argument . . .

Answer this:
Are the 120 "Adelphoi" spoken of in Acts 1:15 all from the SAME mother??

Isn't it pretty obviously the same Father that is being referred to here, as Christ established earlier, in His "It is those who do the will of God that are my mothers and brothers?"

If you believe that Matt. 1:25 is testimony to Joseph and Mary consummating their marriage - then you have a reading comprehension problem.

25 but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son.

Do you think the best idea is to attack peoples' understanding here? How am i not comprehending this right? Ty

And look, i have no desire to contend with you over some belief, ok; i don't think this advances the kingdom any. I get along just fine with most Catholics, the ones in service anyway, but i guess that is because we pointedly do not discuss beliefs. I can only imagine what it is like to be raised Catholic, and then begin actually reading Scripture, counter to the cliche` "Catholics don't read the Bible." And i know you like to mention the 50k sects of Protestantism, but the churches--which are not the Church--were split long before Luther, at the Councils, anyway; you just happen to be--supposedly--in a forum of Protestants, not Eastern Orthodox. Do you go tilt at their windmills, too?

Changing one's mind is very difficult, and i think it is great that you have a concept of God and Christ, even if i do not read or even get the point of "perpetual virgin" as anything more than a distraction, or an attempt to include the goddess worshippers. You are presently much too defensive to debate with, but it takes courage to expose your beliefs to the fire, as you are doing now, and this will work a change in you. When you go out with the idea of serving others, as you are surely doing, you cannot help but be changed imo.

While i don't expect that you would ever correlate the RCC with Paul's wolves immediately coming in, i hope at some point you will accept that people who do not believe what you believe are also accepted by God, and this will be reflected in your Devouring Lion getting smaller, and then disappearing. Meanwhile the best course seems to be to jerk your chain, or push your buttons, just like kids do, and then point it out, just like adults do, ok? This might seem harsh, but in a forum tactics are limited, and the alternative is that you might end your life believing as you do now, that you are better than everyone else, and this justifies you treating people who don't agree with you like dogs--the only part God cares about. See that you are mostly being indulged right now, put up with, because it is pretty obvious that you believe what you are saying, and i guess you are convinced that wreaking havoc a la Saul is the right way to go. Of course Saul speaks to anyone on the path, but it is up to us which Saul we follow, i guess.

God loves you, ok?

 

[bbyrd009]

Athanasius
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [inter A.D. 358-362]).

Epiphanius
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only- begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit." (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

these two are quite contradictory it seems, could you clarify what is going on here Mungo, or explain if this is just a debate within the Orthodox? ty

 

[bbyrd009]

Epiphanius
"And to holy Mary 'Virgin' is invariably added...

indeed

 

[bbyrd009]

Didymus the Blind

indeed. You can't seriously expect a Christian to debate the theology of the blind, now, can you?

...for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin

i mean wadr what was this guy smoking? This goes directly against much Scripture, how can you even post it being aware of this? But perhaps i will get some justification--however tenuous it might be--in the explanation of Matt 1:25 that i guess i have missed until now. How do you manage to twist Matt 1:25 in such a way that Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage? And more importantly, how do you justify not essentially calling darkness light, and vice versa, when you are satisfied that you have done so?

i tell you the truth, if i was a statist, in this Protestant country, this would activate me to quite a bit of activism where the Supreme Court was concerned...not a Protestant in the group, of course.
Those guys actually believe this stuff too! These are the highest judges in the country, and they must either be RCC or Ashkenazi Jew, as no one else is allowed in the club.
Who will you pledge allegiance to when this Empire of Wolves falls, as we witness it doing right now?

i notice you left out Constantine; talk about an Early father! Why is that? Why not quote the guy that made "Christianity" acceptable/legal--if you are going to quote things other than Scripture, that is, as Catholics seem to love to do. I am not meaning to be rude, ok, but i have already seen the day when religious people, just like Nazis, will vehemently disavow their previous associations. Catholics have a stellar record of this already; of course no one delays their altar works or water baptism until their deathbeds anymore, as Connie inaugurated.

The most cogent question one might ask about Catholics is "What will they not believe in a hundred years, that they believe now?"

 

[bbyrd009]

Jerome
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it.

guess Jerome was blind too, huh. He reads what can't be read, and "does not" read what can be read. What i don't get is why Catholics don't just put together a book of these obvious heretics to Christianity and follow them, if that is what they desire? It seems to me that you are more likely to get a backlash than spread this, i mean wadr i am about to spend the rest of the day debating with baby-boomer fascistas who all pledge allegiance to flags and erect Asherah poles, too--they come to me, though, i don't go to them--and i am now empowered to point out how not one of their judges shares their beliefs.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually it was a pretty easy list to respond to. And, my Bible wasn't translated in the 21 century.

Forget your answer concerning Mary in (Luke 1:34). No amount of you twisting it will make it say what you want.

I'm not twisting anything.
Go to the original Greek and pull out your concordance and lexicon and you'll see that the Catholic position on Luke 1:34 is correct.

Concerning 'firstborn', are there any in Scripture who are called firstborn that don't have others born also?

Stranger

I already gave you the BIBLICAL definition of "Firstborn" (Exod. 13:1-2).
Are you saying the God is a liar??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nice speech. No substance.

Only the Romanists have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Church did not. Which men of the Reformation believed in it?
My point of view is the Scriptures point of view. I don't have to do linguistic gymnastics to make them say something they don't.

Only the "Romanists"??
Time for a historical spanking . . .
Martin Luther
Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)


Ulrich Zwingili
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”



(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)


John Calvin
"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned."
(Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]
"[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)
[SIZE=10.5pt][/SIZE]

"Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity." (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

Origen[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]


The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

Hilary of [SIZE=10pt]Poitiers[/SIZE]


If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

Athanasius[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]


Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

Epiphanius[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]


We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

Jerome[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]


But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Another question in a long list you refuse to answer. As I said, unanswered questions answer a lot.

(Matt.1:25) "And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name JESUS." No virginity after that. Makes one wonder why is it so important to have Mary a perpetual virgin, when Scripture teaches otherwise.

Stranger

Why do YOU believe differently than your Protestant Fathers listed above??

 

[BreadOfLife]

So, it seems that for the first 300 years after the death of Christ no "church father" said anything about Mary being "ever virgin". Maybe most Christians believed Mary had other children, or maybe it was assumed she did not.

I think the more serious error of the Catholic Church is their teaching of Mary's sinlessness.

WRONG.

In the examples I listed - not only do the Early Church Fathers quote the 2nd century documents Against Helvidius and the Protoevangelium of James - the "Reformers" did as well.

Question:
If your Protestant Fathers believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity - why don't YOU??

If they were wrong about Mary - what ELSE were they wrong about??

 

[BreadOfLife]

really, it is not; it is the elevation of a human to the status of God, it is goddess worship, the same end as making Mary a lifelong virgin when that is demonstrably not true, so that she might take her place in your Pantheon.

Explain to me how Mary remaining a virgin is "goddess worship".
Show me the Catholic doctrine that teaches she is a "goddess".

If you can't do either - you're just another ignorant anti-Catholic . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

guess Jerome was blind too, huh. He reads what can't be read, and "does not" read what can be read. What i don't get is why Catholics don't just put together a book of these obvious heretics to Christianity and follow them, if that is what they desire? It seems to me that you are more likely to get a backlash than spread this, i mean wadr i am about to spend the rest of the day debating with baby-boomer fascistas who all pledge allegiance to flags and erect Asherah poles, too--they come to me, though, i don't go to them--and i am now empowered to point out how not one of their judges shares their beliefs.

Let's see . . . .
Jerome, who is called the "greatest" Scripture scholar who ever lived believed in the Perpetual virginity.
But YOU, an obscure, angry, ignorant anti-Catholic forum poster are more qualified that Jerome??

Ummmm, I don't think so.

 

[bbyrd009]

Explain to me how Mary remaining a virgin is "goddess worship".
Show me the Catholic doctrine that teaches she is a "goddess".

If you can't do either - you're just another ignorant anti-Catholic . . .

well i hope you understand that in light of Scripture that obviously--to most people--translates that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born--and undoubtedly liked it--as well as the many supporting passages that mentions Jesus' "mother and brothers and sisters" which become "cousins" only by the most extreme distortions of Scripture, i don't feel compelled to explain the spiritual implications of elevating Mary to Godhood, wadr. I'm still trying to get a handle how this was even perpetrated upon you, tbh. Aren't the sinless defined as "God" or "gods?" Regardless of how you might choose to hold your mouth there? Could you explain the difference? Ty

John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin, and i note that Scripture had no probs making that clear...

 

[bbyrd009]

and i gotta ask why this person is continually allowed to break forum protocol and rules and deliberately belittle every poster he interacts with. Why isn't BoL getting at least a time-out? Is the point of allowing him to call all and sundry whatever name suits him to make the RCC look bad? Because while that certainly is the case, imo it sets a poor precedent. I am not anti-Catholic, but it seems as if heathens are allowed to run amok in here, wadr. Who wants to post in this climate?