All have sinned.. including Mary.

[justasking4]

elvisman;3516191]There are 2 places in Scripture that mention Peter even having a wife: 1 Corinthians 9:5 and Mark 1:30. And guess what? It doesn’t mention that he WASN’T a widower, either.

As for Peter and his wife being killed in Rome together - that’s not a tradition I’ve ever heard of. Please state your source.

Got it from the New Advent. Here is a quote from it:
“The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxi) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3).”

Besides, if it’s not in Scripture, wouldn’t you be less inclined to believe a mere tradition anyway?

Historical traditions have their place in helping us to understand how the faith progressed through time but they are not the grounds for doctrines and practice.

 

[NDfan]

Quite obviously, the gospels would not record public recognition of the importance of Mary. She did not go around telling people that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. They also refer to Jesus as the Son of Joseph. So what does their lack of respect for Mary prove?

That she doesn’t have the role you claim. If the Gospel writers, 2 of which walked with Jesus, say nothing of her with regard to your beliefs, and then Paul who was directly commissioned by Jesus says nothing of Mary, that speaks volumes.

When the rich man came to Jesus, he said, “Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” You are well aware of what Jesus said. Why do you call me Good? No one but the Father is good.

If we use your reasoning above, we must surmise that because Jesus does not proclaim Himself God and Good to the rich man he has denied his own divinity.

I think you are misunderstanding this verse. And Jesus does make HIS claim to be GOD you know that. Look at all the “I AM” statements Jesus makes in John. Jesus pronounces forgiveness of sin which is a self-proclamation of HIM being GOD. Your point is a little weak here.

If Jesus never made HIS outright claims then we wouldn’t believe in HIM. When Jesus wants us to know and believe something HE tells us several times over. Yet HE never mentions anything pertinent about Mary. HE credits her for obeying GOD.

The obvious answer to your question is because neither Mary nor Jesus are concerned with being adored and praised here on Earth, they are honoring the will of the Father and drawing attention to each individual’s relationship with the Father and their obedience to His will.

Jesus is not concerned with being adored?? Well maybe adored is the wrong word. Jesus wants us to worship HIM and believe in HIM as the son of GOD. He doesn’t preach some subdued meek message. Jesus preaches with outright authority and tells us emphatically that we can’t get to GOD unless we go through HIM. HE says nothing of the kind for Mary. And he never tells us that we go to Mary to get to HIM.

I’ve replied to this point several times but it is totally ignored. By your reasoning, because Jesus is God incarnate, then He had no need to be born of a woman at all. He could have simply arrived on a cloud.

Yes he could have but that’s not the way GOD wanted it. GOD could have placed Jesus here however HE wanted. But HE chose to use Mary. What’s your point?? I don’t deny the virgin birth. I reject the notion that Mary HAD to be sinless so Jesus would be sinless. My argument is that it’s impossible to taint GOD with sin. Jesus is GOD incarnate. Why is that so hard for you? And please tell me what point I am ignoring and I’ll be happy to answer.

The idea that because He is holy, he cannot be tainted by sin, is totally beside the point. The point is that what God is joined to is made pure. I have made this point in more detail in several places and it is ignored.

Ahh. Now you are making my point. I offered up the same thing and it got ignored. I would say Mary didn’t purify Jesus. Jesus purified Mary. Just as Jesus simple touch healed the leper, the blind, the bleeding woman etc. I posted this several pages back and I believe someone else offered that idea up as well.

PEACE

 

[justasking4]

estesbob;3516262]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Christ not the author of confusion but that does not mean some of His followers might be. In fact we should expect it since we are fallen.

estesbob;
So he left us on our own?

Depends what you mean here. Christ gave to the church teachers who are to teach His word to the church that they might be built up in Christ. Ephesians 4:11-16 is clear about this:
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Christ did leave us alone as you know. His Spirit is still among those who are united to Him.

Quote:justasking4
Even in your own church will you be able to avoid the confusion.

estesbob;
Our Church has avoided the Confusion-adhering to the same teachings and doctrines for 2,000 years.

This is not necessarily true. There has been a lot of different beliefs in your church for centuries. Take one of the most recent in regards to Mary where some want to have it proclaimed offically and dogmatically that she is: “the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.”
I have talked to a few catholics about this and some are deeply concerned about this. I suspect there are some on these forums.

How about you. Would you have a problem with this?

 

[NeedImprovement]

For this assumption (and all Catholic assumptions) I could just as easily come up with:
(a) Mary was sinless during the 9 month pregnancy
or
(b) Mary was sinless from the pregnancy onward.

.

Hi Mozart-250. I was wondering if you could humor me a little further and describe/suggest/invent the hypothetical event which would cause or mark the beginning of a) or b)…just a brief description that might help me see how you see it?

BTW the title of your posts: “I am a heretic. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church.” gave me a big smile (lol actually). From my perspective your sense of humor is intact and thriving - that’s a very good sign.

Also your (sort of) might be a Freudian slip; since we say the Church is holy but it is made up of sinners.We just don’t like to put God’s gentle Mother in that last category.

God bless you and… nourish that sense of humor.It’s a wonderful gift.

 

[NDfan]

You have the wrong argument completely.

Catholics are not arguing that there is a qualitative difference in the grace of God as bestowed upon the Ephesians and that which was bestowed upon Mary.

Yes they most definitely are. The argument made is that at the point of conception Mary was preserved from the stain of sin. To support this they use the word kecharitomene which means to have grace bestowed to you. It’s the past tense of the word Charitoo. The RCC claims that the very point in time it happened was her conception in the womb of her mother. But that cannot be deduced from scripture. Echaritosen is the same grace using the same root word Charitoo but in the present tense. So they both would have to be sinless based on your argument that the grace implied by the word Charitoo means sinless. The RCC affirms this point exactly. They associate charitoo as meaning sinless and say it happened at conception based on the past tense use of the word which is kecharitomene.

The theological point being made is that when the Annunciation occurred, the grace had already been bestowed.

Exactly. It occured in the past. But again the infallible declaration of 1854 states that it was at the point of conception and it means she was preserved from the stain of sin.

Why and how would Mary have been redeemed at a point in time following her conception? There is no basis to argue that she was redeemed at age 5 or age 10. We do know that before Christ was conceived, Mary was redeemed. Thank you for showing us how this verb proves the Catholic position.

You point makes no sense here. I’m not saying she was redeemed at age 5 or 10. I’m saying that based on a strict interpretation of the word kecharitomene, you can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint the time that she was graced. And it doesn’t get associated with redemption. Mary was redeemed the same way we are. The blood of Christ. It could have happened a day before the Angel visited her. But again if you are going to say that Mary was redeemed by the bestowing of charitoo, then the Ephesians would have to have the same redemption. Only in the present. But that’s impossible because Ephesians chapter 2 states that the Ephesians are slaves to sin. That means they needed Christ to redeem them. You can’t have it both ways:dts:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm]

“However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).”

I’ve read everything there is to read on this so I’ve seen this. If you read this argument the scholar is trying to say that the use of the word charitoo here is only a momentary action. They are completely wrong. Charitoo here has the same permanent meaning as the use in Luke.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

So be it.

PEACE to you

 

[estesbob]

Christ did leave us alone as you know. His Spirit is still among those who are united to Him.

A Spririt who appears to sow mass confusion by giving different and often contradicroty answers depending on asks.

This is not necessarily true. There has been a lot of different beliefs in your church for centuries. Take one of the most recent in regards to Mary where some want to have it proclaimed offically and dogmatically that she is: “the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.”
I have talked to a few catholics about this and some are deeply concerned about this. I suspect there are some on these forums

.

Just becuase you can find some catholics who are concnred about something does not mean the Church has changed its teachings.

[qoute]How about you. Would you have a problem with this?

Lets wait and see if the Church does it. i see no indication they are going to -at least the way you describe it. Its like asking would you mind if the church said Jesus was not the Son of God?

 

[guanophore]

There really is only one ultimate source for the inspired-inerrant scriptures and that is God. Men would used by God to pen the scriptures but they were not the source of there power and inspiration. Only God is.

Of course, God is the Source of all that is good. In the case of the Scripture, God chose to work through men, adn they were co-authors with him.

 

[justasking4]

Of course, God is the Source of all that is good. In the case of the Scripture, God chose to work through men, adn they were co-authors with him.

It looks like we might agree on something----:extrahappy: :dancing:

 

[mozart-250]

Hi Mozart-250. I was wondering if you could humor me a little further and describe/suggest/invent the hypothetical event which would cause or mark the beginning of a) or b)…just a brief description that might help me see how you see it?

Sure.

If the dogma was Mary was sinless from the point at which the angel appears to her to either (a) the end of the pregnancy or (b) the end of her life, you
(a) would still be able to support it by every argument you use here for the IC.
(b) would not have the issue of making an exception to Romans 3;23.

And from my point of view you would have a report of a nice little miracle that God did (like the assumption) that officially I suppose I would be ambivalent about, but unofficially I would be inclined to believe (I am a sucker for believing reports of nice little miracles that God does as long as they don’t seem too incredulous and as long as they don’t seem to contradict the word).

BTW the title of your posts: “I am a heretic. I (sort of) like the Catholic Church.” gave me a big smile (lol actually). From my perspective your sense of humor is intact and thriving - that’s a very good sign.

Also your (sort of) might be a Freudian slip; since we say the Church is holy but it is made up of sinners.We just don’t like to put God’s gentle Mother in that last category.

God bless you and… nourish that sense of humor.It’s a wonderful gift.

Well thank you.

Actually I haven’t updated it awhile (until today where I updated my radiation stuff). Taking 3 hours per day out to travel to the big city of Burlington for radiation sort of saps my time and strength.

But you remind me that would be a good thing to do.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

I’ve read everything there is to read on this so I’ve seen this. If you read this argument the scholar is trying to say that the use of the word charitoo here is only a momentary action. They are completely wrong. Charitoo here has the same permanent meaning as the use in Luke.

Actually, your wrong. When the perfect passive participle is used, it denotes the continuence of the completed action. When the present tense is used, it denotes that the action is occuring, but there is no guarentee that it will continue. I have dark hair. that’s present tense. I may still have dark hair fifty years from now, or I may not. I may have had dark hair in the past, or I may not. The present tense does not go one way or the other. But with the perfect passive participle, now I am saying I had dark hair and I will always have dark hair. Mary was bestowed with grace and will always have grace.

 

[Good_Fella]

Christ did not partake in the corrupt spirit of Mary because Christ cannot be corrupted. Remember what happened when Christ touched the leper, the bleeding woman, the blind man, the man who was demon possessed etc. etc. etc. Did Christ become defiled as a result of this? Absolutely not. HE healed them. Since sin is the cause of all sickness then it’s impossible for Jesus to be infected with any sin becaue he is the healer of sin.

It’s impossible for Jesus to receive a sinful flesh from a sinful Mary. That’s the same as saying that GOD can inherit sin. IMPOSSIBLE!!! PEACE

According to a Catholic theologian I consulted, it is true that Jesus could not have contracted original sin, even if God had chosen for him to be conceived and borne of a sinful woman. Yes, he is a divine Person, so he cannot have original sin. Yet it was fitting for God the Father to prepare the way for the Messiah by a pure Jewish maiden, just as God prepared the human race for the coming of the Messiah by teaching and purifying the Jews. God could have sent the Messiah without preparing his arrival without first preparing his chosen people, the Jews, to receive him. But it would not be fitting.

Still there is the question of how Mary’s potentially sinful nature - the effects of original sin - could affect Jesus’ genuinely human nature, for our Lord did acquire a distinct human soul and a human mind along with the divine. At any rate, the question of inheritance is of far less importance than the matter of fittingness. It was not fitting for the sacred to be essentially and substantially united with the profane. The hypostatic union in Christ occurred at the first moment of his conception in his blessed mother’s womb. It did not occur when Jesus touched the leper. Our Lord’s way had already been prepared for him by the time of that event.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

There really is only one ultimate source for the inspired-inerrant scriptures and that is God. Men would used by God to pen the scriptures but they were not the source of there power and inspiration. Only God is.

Yes, and God chose to work through His creation. He could have burned them on rock or parchment. He did not. He chose those who loved Him with all of their hearts, minds, souls, and strength to transmit HIs immutable message.

You study it. You use good exegetical methods as you would in other disciplines.
Is it not true that the catholic church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses? If this is the case, then how do you determine which interpretation of scripture is correct on those passage the church has not infallibly interpreted?

By reading it in the light of the infallible Sacred Tradition from which it was produced!

Christ not the author of confusion but that does not mean some of His followers might be. In fact we should expect it since we are fallen.

On the contrary, Catholics trust in the promises of Christ, rather than our own fallible nature.

John 16:12-15
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

Even in your oqn church will you be able to avoid the confusion.

It is wrong for you to sow seeds of confusion and division, ja4. Your prophesies of dissention will not overpower the promises of Christ.

 So using the Apostolic succession argument fails right here.  That's why the instructions the Apostles left as claimed by one of the ECFs was to make sure the church held to Apostolic teachings.  Irenaeus coined the term Apostolic Succession in response to all the heretics like Marcion, the Gnostics, Montanists etc.  This was to make sure that church leaders who held to Apostolic teachings were in the Christian churches.

PEACE

Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of apostolic succession?

 

[fbl9]

Lapell I’m glad you posted this because I was getting ready to call you on it. If Mary could be sinless in her mother’s sinful womb then Jesus certainly could be sinless in Mary’s sinful womb. The difference is Jesus is GOD incarnate so the blood passed to HIM would have been cleansed by HIS healing powers.

I’m always amazed when it is said that Mary had to be sinless so Jesus would be sinless, yet they can’t explain how Mary stayed sinless by receiving sinful blood from her mother. If she was made sinless at conception then she still would have her mother’s sinful blood circulating into her. What stops Mary from becoming sinless then?

but here in lies a difference Mary is not divine Jesus is though.i apologize to you NDfan for my last post in regards to your post.in my haste i didn’t read all of what i should have read.mind you i was correct in the other parts.your post#705 on page 47 was rather ineresting though.

 

[honeysuckle]

Yes they most definitely are. The argument made is that at the point of conception Mary was preserved from the stain of sin. To support this they use the word kecharitomene which means to have grace bestowed to you. It’s the past tense of the word Charitoo. The RCC claims that the very point in time it happened was her conception in the womb of her mother. But that cannot be deduced from scripture. Echaritosen is the same grace using the same root word Charitoo but in the present tense. So they both would have to be sinless based on your argument that the grace implied by the word Charitoo means sinless. The RCC affirms this point exactly. They associate charitoo as meaning sinless and say it happened at conception based on the past tense use of the word which is kecharitomene.

No it most definitely is not qualitatively different. Unique and unprecedented, but still fully based on the passion of Christ, so therefore, it is the same grace. Your argument falls apart if you recognize the only difference between the use of the verbs is the tense. Moreover, the use of the verb is not the sole argument for the doctrine, use of the verb is considered implicit evidence for Mary being saved from original sin at the moment of her conception. And yet you keep pushing this argument as if the entire doctrine rises or falls on the basis of whether or not the verb was ever used anywhere else in the New Testament.

Exactly. It occured in the past. But again the infallible declaration of 1854 states that it was at the point of conception and it means she was preserved from the stain of sin.

…Which the use of the verb offers no evidnence to refute

You point makes no sense here. I’m not saying she was redeemed at age 5 or 10. I’m saying that based on a strict interpretation of the word kecharitomene, you can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint the time that she was graced.
And it doesn’t get associated with redemption. Mary was redeemed the same way we are. The blood of Christ. It could have happened a day before the Angel visited her. But again if you are going to say that Mary was redeemed by the bestowing of charitoo, then the Ephesians would have to have the same redemption. Only in the present. But that’s impossible because Ephesians chapter 2 states that the Ephesians are slaves to sin. That means they needed Christ to redeem them. You can’t have it both ways:dts:

What are you talking about? In what way is the Immaculate Conception NOT about redemption? The Catholic Church has never denied that Mary was saved from sin and needed a Savior, they have said that she was saved at conception. Why do you seem to think it is contrary to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception for Mary to be redeemed by the same grace (charitoo) that the Ephesians were redeemed with later?

The fact that Mary has been preserved from falling into sin and her soul was infused with grace at its creation does not change the simple fact that it was still a corrective work of Christ to preserve Mary of the stain of original sin. No different than the corrective work of redemption performed for the Ephesians after they had fallen into sin.

What am I missing here? How is it that I have been taught this but you seem to think the grace bestowed on Mary cannot be described with the same verb as the grace bestowed on the Ephesians without implying they were immacuatlely conceived? Because that seems to be a stretch and a convulated argument.,

 

[Good_Fella]

Most of the debate concerning the Catholic assumptions surrounding the Immaculate Conception in this thread is unnecessary.

The problem with the Immaculate Conception is that even if I grant every Catholic assumption concerning it, the Immaculate Conception is not the only possible conclusion.

There are less shall I say dramatic conclusions available where I don’t need to provide an exception to Romans 3:23. When I can easily come up with conclusions that don’t provide an exception, I have absolutely no reason to believe that an exception is warranted for Mary.

For this assumption (and all Catholic assumptions) I could just as easily come up with:
(a) Mary was sinless during the 9 month pregnancy
or
(b) Mary was sinless from the pregnancy onward.

Neither of the above conclusions require providing an exception to Romans 3:23. So why again should I believe that Mary was an exception to “All have sinned”.

The Catholic answers are sufficient. That is enough to warrant their veracity.

The Catholic perspective is not the only possible conclusion, for the Church cannot put a constraint on God. But the Catholic perception is the final conclusion, for the Catholic Church is the voice of Christ. Our Lord did not found or abandon His Church at the time of Luther’s revolt and separation from her.

Mary was sinless during her entire life, for she was conceived without original sin at the instant God fashioned her soul. Paul is telling us that the human race is “implicated” in the first sin of Adam. One can be implicated without necessarily being directly involved in something. Mary was potentially subject to sin, and she was in need of a saviour, but God preserved her from actually inheriting the stain of original sin and redeemed her by the merits of Christ’s death as soon as she came into existence in her mother’s womb.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[honeysuckle]

ndfan:

Lapell I’m glad you posted this because I was getting ready to call you on it. If Mary could be sinless in her mother’s sinful womb then Jesus certainly could be sinless in Mary’s sinful womb. The difference is Jesus is GOD incarnate so the blood passed to HIM would have been cleansed by HIS healing powers.

Only if you completely misconstrue the Immaculate Conception to the phrase “born without sin” and erroneously exclude the fact that the Immaculate Conception was a work of divine grace and redemption. If you do that, then of course, it won’t make any sense that Mary was conceived without sin to sinful parents. However, if you recognize that God intervened at the point of Mary’s conception to redeem her through the merits of Christ, then you realize there is not the slightest problem with the redeemed Mary being born to parents who had not yet been redeemed.

 

[Good_Fella]

100% correct. But the woman is not Mary. GOD did not wait until Mary existed to put enmity between the woman and her descendants. That would imply hostility between the serpent’s descendants and the woman’s descendants didn’t exist until 2000 years ago. The enmity was created immediately as we see in the book of Job, Chronicles etc. If hostility between the serpent’s descendants and the woman’s existed before Mary then Mary cannot be the woman.PEACE

Hmmm.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, ‘and’ between your seed and her seed; he (she) shall briuse your head, and you shall bruise his (her) heel.” {Genesis 3, 15}

In ancient Hebrew the word “enmity” connoted absolute opposition and alienation - the marks of original sin which is the seed of the serpent, the devil. And the word meant a total antipathy of interest and inclination. Anyone who was described as being at enmity with another person meant he shared no common ground with his enemy or antagonist. In the above verse, God is addressing the consequence of Eve’s disobedience. But he is not directly referring to Eve. The “enmity” spoken of here is a future enmity, one that “will” be placed between the woman and the serpent, the devil. Eve already shares common ground with the serpent, having listened to him instead of God. And all her descendants will be implicated along with her until the time of our redemption. So the Proto-evangelium - the first prophecy of the coming of a saviour - refers to a future woman, the New Eve as invoked by the early Church Fathers, who will never share common ground with the devil by disobeying God as Eve did. She will not bear the marks inflicted by original sin, for she will never be in this state from the first moment of her existence.

“Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” {Luke 11, 28}

We should keep in mind the phrase “her seed”. We find this phrase no where else in Holy Scripture. The Jews understood that the seed (lineage) came from the man, not the woman. The phrase indicates that a woman will play a key role in a new kind of lineage which will result in the destruction of the power of Satan on earth. Surely, this declaration in Genesis is about Mary, not Eve. Eve gave birth to Cain, Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Finally, we should note the use of the conjunction “and” in the Proto-evangelium. It functions to create a parallelism: Woman against serpent, the woman’s offspring against the serpent’s offspring. Both the woman and her offspring share common ground and opposition against the devil and sin, for both mother and Son are at “enmity” with the serpent and his offspring. The Son destroyed the power of Satan and restored mankind’s friendship with God by His death on the Cross. The woman served to destroy the reign of Satan and the power of sin by freely accepting to receive her seed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

"Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” {Luke 1, 38]

“Most blessed are you among women, ‘and’ blessed is the fruit of your womb.” {Luke 1, 42}

In the words of Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, Luke expresses and confirms his church’s belief in the fulfillment of the Proto-evangelium. Together at enmity with the devil, both mother and child were uniquely “blessed” - without sin.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[elt1956]

This doesn’t speak to whether or not she is alive.
Peter WAS married - that is certain. What is UNcertain is whether or not she was alive in Corinthians 9:5 OR Mark 1:30.
You want to debate from a purely Scriptural point of view? Then show me where it states that she was alive in these 2 passages. Paul’s assertion that Cephas was married doesn’t make the claim that he was not a widower. He is speaking of their rights as apostles.

Oh for Pete’s sake ElvisMan? Have you nothing better to argue about? Good grief as Charlie Brown would say.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **elvisman **
This doesn’t speak to whether or not she is alive.
Peter WAS married - that is certain. What is UNcertain is whether or not she was alive in Corinthians 9:5 OR Mark 1:30.
You want to debate from a purely Scriptural point of view? Then show me where it states that she was alive in these 2 passages. Paul’s assertion that Cephas was married doesn’t make the claim that he was not a widower. He is speaking of their rights as apostles.

When you come right down to it, IT DOESN’T MATTER.