Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[benedictus2]

Please read my post again and lookout for the word ‘formal structure’ (big hint)

I’m also sure most historians agree that the first council was the pivotal point where the catholic church began to exhibit a universal nature and formal structure.

And the first council is the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.

So it seems it is not only history you should start reading up on but the Bible as well.

 

[Todd520]

benedictus2:

    So clearly the Evangelist      is interested to prove that Panagia [the All-Holy Virgin] was a Virgin until      (*eos*) Christ's birth, Who was born supernaturally, from the Spirit      the Holy, and He is not son of Joseph's but Son of God. Regarding the issues      after the birth, these are of no interest in      the semantics of this sentence. It was obvious that she stayed a Virgin, since      she had been honoured to bear the All-Holy Word in the first place.

beneictus, your examples of until are not appropriate,

• UNTIL someone dies has the very specific meaning: IT NEVER HAPPENED. It should not be compared with the usage in question.
• UNTIL some future event is also a different usage with different meaning

So, to comapre the three usages
1 He was a virgin until the day he died (meaning is obvious)
2 He promised to remain a virigin until he found true love (we don’t know if anything changed)
3 He was a virgin until his honeymoon (we know he is married so we infer loss of virginity)

The truth is, **this is a bad translation ** since the contemporay use of UNTIL here has a different meaning than the original Greek.
Until is the wrong english word so stop using bad examples of until to defend it.

I agree the author was not trying to discuss their post birth sex life.
I wish the verse was explicit and read “Mary was a virgin until she died”, so this discussion would be over.

 

[Dokimas]

Explain how.
Please enlighten me . . .

I don’t have the time or inkling. BTW, you are smart enough to understand without my imput

 

[elvisman]

I don’t have the time or inkling. BTW, you are smart enough to understand without my imput

Just what I thought - no evidence . . .

 

[Dokimas]

Then PROVE that the Catholic Church started 300 years after the death and resurrections of Christ.

You’re very adept at scattered one-liners but when it comes to providing evidence - you are extremenly lacking.

You aren’t open to anything that is different than you believe.

There’s enough info to aid your search if you truly want to know.

And, it’s not a big enough deal. The only reason to mention it is because of how you treat others with differing understanding.

 

[elvisman]

I wish the verse was explicit and read “Mary was a virgin until she died”, so this discussion would be over.

And I wish that you and your friends would address the rebuttals we’ve all made the regarding some of the bogus statements you made.

 

[Dokimas]

Your little hit-and-run on-liners aren’t holding anybody accountable for anything.
It’s simply about you attempting to get your little anti-Catholic jabs in here and there, rather unsuccessfully, I might add.

Here’s some advice: If you have something to add to the conversation/topic - then do it. If not - find another hobby . . .

My jabs can’t compare with bearing false witness. I’m not anti-catholic.

Notice your responses. They are full of jabs.

Treating people the way you do is not condusive for giving advice.

 

[Dokimas]

Just what I thought - no evidence . . .

If that makes you feel better to believe that, who am I to burst your bubble.

 

[elvisman]

You aren’t open to anything that is different than you believe.

There’s enough info to aid your search if you truly want to know.

And, it’s not a big enough deal. The only reason to mention it is because of how you treat others with differing understanding.

I am willing to read anything you offer as evidence for the claims you’ve made.
Your problem is that you make statements and charges against the historic Christian faith - then you recoil and run for cover when somebody calls you on it.

**So - please give me some evidence to substantiate your claims about the Chuch not coming into existence until the 3rd or 4th century. I will read them, do some research about their origins and respond. **

Fair enough?

 

[elvisman]

My jabs can’t compare with bearing false witness. I’m not anti-catholic.

Notice your responses. They are full of jabs.

Treating people the way you do is not condusive for giving advice.

If that makes you feel better to believe that, who am I to burst your bubble.

Just to prove to you that I am open-minded and willing to listen to your evidence about the Church - I will let these 2 remarks slide.

Now - I am still waiting for evidence that the Church didn’t come into existence until the 3rd or 4th century.

 

[Dokimas]

I am willing to read anything you offer as evidence for the claims you’ve made.
Your problem is that you make statements and charges against the historic Christian faith - then you recoil and run for cover when somebody calls you on it.

So - please give me some evidence to substantiate your claims about the Chuch not coming into existence until the 3rd or 4th century. I will read them, do some research about their origins and respond.

Fair enough?

Being willing to read something isn’t the issue. The issue is reading with an open mind willing to accept correction. From your multitude of post, I doubt you have that kind of open mind.

 

[Todd520]

And I wish that you and your friends would address the rebuttals we’ve all made the regarding some of the bogus statements you made.

Elivs, I apologize if I’ve missed your rebutals.

Please restate the open issue and I will respond

 

[Dokimas]

**
So - please** give me some evidence to substantiate your claims about the Chuch not coming into existence until the 3rd or 4th century. I will read them, do some research about their origins and respond.

What is the origin of your understanding to the history of the CC? Is it not the CC itself?

 

[Dokimas]

Just to prove to you that I am open-minded and willing to listen to your evidence about the Church - I will let these 2 remarks slide.

**Now - I am still **waiting for evidence that the Church didn’t come into existence until the 3rd or 4th century.

Your rhetoric will not get me to dance to your music. You know how to get all the info you need to get an apposing view to the one you hold. You’ve most likely already read much of the information and no doubt rejected it.

Please don’t waste your time asking or commenting. It will be meaningless.

 

[adrift]

The ‘pearls before swine’ remark originally was a caution, by Jesus, to avoid displaying your most sacred and precious things before people who mock, denigrate and disparage both you and your beliefs.

Perhaps you should read the threads and think a bit before you decide which role which side is taking in that parable.

Perhaps your the one who should read the thread. I notice that you only chastise certain people and let others slide. I am glad you understood my remark it was right on.

 

[adrift]

Agreed. Do you think Elvis will agree?

Secular history does not agree and to repeat It is a blind ignorance born from bigotry. It certainly has no basis in history. But then why let truth get in the way:ehh:

 

[adrift]

Another arrogant comment that lacks charity.

While I have serious questions about Mormonism, I’d have to say that Diana and Tobb have interacted with far more class and kindness than several of you who are supposed to be a representative of the Christ of the One true church. IMO, you dishonor your church.

These remarks are kind?
You have not been reading their remarks than. They have not been charitiable.

Are you taking this tact because you don’t have the mental horsepower to argue the points?

Do you have a thing for me? I don’t like stalkers

Is this what you call class and kindness? Or is it really a put down of what you disagree with and you have nothing else.
You have now slid into that category of which you accuse everone else of. Arrogance! read your own posts they are full of it.

 

[Dokimas]

Secular history does not agree and to repeat It is a blind ignorance born from bigotry. It certainly has no basis in history. But then why let truth get in the way:ehh:

Bigotry is a strong word. Don’t you think I should have something against the CC to be bigoted? I DO NOT have anything against the CC.

In fact, one could make a good argument that your comments to some of us may be from a bigoted mind set.

 

[Dokimas]

You have not been reading there remarks than they have not been charitiable. You have now slid into that category as well. Arrogance read your own post they are full of it.

I’d love to be corrected. Please show me where you think I’ve been arrogant and if I’ve been that I’ll apologize.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance?show=0&t=1284916247

ar·ro·gance noun \ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə-
Definition of ARROGANCE
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

I think you’ll be hard pressed because I know I’m NOT superior to anyone. The only real thing I presume to be correct is that I could be wrong.

But I’m open to your post revealing I am arrogant.

 

[Dokimas]

These remarks are kind?
You have not been reading their remarks than. They have not been charitiable.

Is this what you call class and kindness.
You have now slid into that category as well. Arrogance! read your own posts they are full of it.

Unkindness isn’t equal with arrogance.

Well I have good company with you. I hope you make me feel welcome.