Thank-you for your response. This is kind of what I am looking for. But what I really am asking is can you say that you have a better undertanding of our and teaching’s of Mary because of this site? I mean I understand we can never change anyones mind of what to believe, but if People understand what we believe better by this site? We did get quite de-railed didn’t we:blush:.Honestly, I have no problems with RC doctrines on Mary. I don’t really get the Assumption, but that poses no problems for me. I accept, more or less, the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity, and I have no problem with the Immaculate Conception. I say the “Ave Maria” sometimes.
Interestingly, I came from a liberal protestant background in the late 1960s, when the Virgin Birth seemed to be a stumbling block to “relevancy”. I became a Baha’i and accepted the Virgin Birth because it said so in the Qur’an. Now, back to the Episcopal Church, no one is questionning it anymore.
But on an emotional, prayer-life, level, I don’t connect with Marian devotions. It just isn’t part of my life. My frank response.
Yes. This site is helpful. So is the Catholic Answers radio program. I am not rushing toward becoming Catholic, but should I ever do that, I don’t think the Marian doctrines will be a stumbling block.Thank-you for your response. This is kind of what I am looking for. But what I really am asking is can you say that you have a better undertanding of our and teaching’s of Mary because of this site? I mean I understand we can never change anyones mind of what to believe, but if People understand what we believe better by this site? We did get quite de-railed didn’t we:blush:.
I stand squarely with the Word of God. I can’t admit that the truth is wrong, because that would be lying. Mary was not only the Mother of Jesus, She was the Mother of God, and the Mother of her Savior and our Savior. I am curious if you are aware that your posts are consistently coming across as arrogant and condescending. This is weakening the effectiveness of your arguments. Just FYI.In the NT it is used only for Christian brother or biological brother; it is obvious that you can’t admit you are wrong. You stand against the Word of God and you will never be right; so stick with your Catholic Mary who is an invention. i have no problem with that, but do not insult the mother of Jesus by patronizing nonsense.
But you’re ignoring scripture, in order to just carelessly throw out a suggestion that “well there are so many James etc… They were probably all different people”. I’m sorry, but you can’t do that. Any theological idea must be supportable by all of scripture, and the idea that Jesus had sibblings is particularly destroyed by John 19. Now I didn’t say this is the only passage that violates this idea, but it’s certainly among the most powerful. You can not throw it out carelessly like you are. You must address it.You also, like Elvis are unable to distinquish between the context of biological brother with the context of Christian brothers, a very basic thing, which is furhter evidence, I said further evidence, that you do not posess the HS as your guide to Truth.
I know where you are also trying to go; but you don’t nor does Elvis understand that there are 3 James, maybe 4 listed in the Scripture. Two of them were of the 12, the other is the brother of Jesus who was the Pastor in the Jerusalem church. But since neither of you can understand the basic things; there is no point in reaching deeper into the Word; that would be putting the cart before the horse. You either get on your knees, then get to work and start reading and studying Scripture or die in your ignorance; it is your free choice. there are two paths of the life the broad way and the narrow way; which path is the easier one? the broad way, which is marked heaven but doesn’t go there.
are you responding to me? my quoting got all screwed up in that post. I never suggested that Jesus had uteran brothers, I was responding to that text. For some reason the BBB implementation here messed things up. Sorry for the confusion. Jesus had no siblings, this is clear from SS.But you’re ignoring scripture, in order to just carelessly throw out a suggestion that “well there are so many James etc… They were probably all different people”. I’m sorry, but you can’t do that. Any theological idea must be supportable by all of scripture, and the idea that Jesus had sibblings is particularly destroyed by John 19. Now I didn’t say this is the only passage that violates this idea, but it’s certainly among the most powerful. You can not throw it out carelessly like you are. You must address it.
You seem pretty sure of yourself. PLEASE name the uterine siblings of Jesus.
NOBODY has been able to do that in the 5 years I have been on these forums.
In post #166, you called me ignorant of the Scriptures in regards to Jesus’s supposed siblings:are you responding to me? my quoting got all screwed up in that post. I never suggested that Jesus had uteran brothers, I was responding to that text. For some reason the BBB implementation here messed things up. Sorry for the confusion. Jesus had no siblings, this is clear from SS.
Please explain.You also, like Elvis are unable to distinquish between the context of biological brother with the context of Christian brothers, a very basic thing, which is furhter evidence, I said further evidence, that you do not posess the HS as your guide to Truth.
I know where you are also trying to go; but you don’t nor does Elvis understand that there are 3 James, maybe 4 listed in the Scripture. Two of them were of the 12, the other is the brother of Jesus who was the Pastor in the Jerusalem church. But since neither of you can understand the basic things; there is no point in reaching deeper into the Word; that would be putting the cart before the horse. You either get on your knees, then get to work and start reading and studying Scripture or die in your ignorance; it is your free choice.