Search results

Not necessarily. It is more likely that none of them are.

The point here is either being repeatedly missed by you or deliberately ignored by you. You have reached a conclusion about something that is not accepted as definitive by any denomination that I know of...and then you've presented your conclusion to us as if it were necessarily true and...

Three officially declared, allegedly infallible, dogmas of your church deal with what you have been promoting here: Mary's virginity before the Annunciation, after giving birth to Jesus, and for all the rest of her life afterwards. Maria Valtorta is not a mere "spokesperson" and certainly is...

In other words, incomplete, deficient, lacking material critical to the church's dogma. Not an issue. We all know that to be true, but you are the one claiming that what you think is missing is revealed in the claims made by Maria Valtorta (and possibly other such people). I did discern and...

I usually find that they cannot be reached. They have convinced themselves that anyone who doubts or questions them is just close-minded or, sadly enough, is one of the many who have gone with the crowd and are content with some easy version of establishment Christianity.

I would consider that to mean defective. After all, you are arguing that critical information, information that bears upon a dogma of your church, is missing from the revelation God gave to mankind. Yet its absence from Scripture (and from Tradition as well) is supposedly remedied by something...

Yes. This world and this life are not identical to the ones to come after physical death. I should have thought that it wouldn't be necessary to point that out. It's so, just as I said. The point, however, is that there is no reason to suppose that Scripture is defective simply because we have...

Not so. We are aware that not everything we might want to know about heaven and hell, eternity, and so on is covered somewhere in Holy Scripture. We are given what God intended for us to have in this life in order to accomplish his objectives. The rest will be made known to the believer in the...

Yes. And that is a standard view of Christians, that God so loved the world, despite our fallen nature, that he deigned to lower himself by becoming one of his creatures, be falsely charged and arrested, and then give himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Had he instead done something like you...

No. For God to be willing to become one of us humans except for knowing sin himself, he had already addressed that concern of yours. You said "If you take what you said a bit further...," but there's nothing that calls for us to take the matter further and speculate as you did.

deleted

Okay, but if we remember where this particular thread began... the issue wasn't whether or not she could have remained a virgin for the rest of her life, or even that she did so (if anyone chooses to contend for that possibility), but whether a Christian must either believe it true or be a...

Perhaps the meaning is that a person should not simmer with resentment, etc. even if he isn't contemplating any kind of "getting even" with the person who brought it about. Even if there is no hatred or retaliation, merely holding onto such thoughts gives the devil an opportunity.

Then perhaps the rest of us should take issue with your use of a term like "non-Catholic." :unsure: I don't recall anyone on this thread calling you a "non-Lutheran" or non-Anglican" for promoting what your own denomination has decreed.

Basically, a person can float almost any theory using the cover of it being a "heavenly matter." This wasn't about a Mary being a prophet. She didn't ask how the conception would happen. Her reply simply showed confusion about how that which the angel announced to her could possibly be...

I know it won't make any difference, but I did indeed answer it earlier. No, when such a revelation as she received from Garbriel happens, the normal and logical reaction is to think it is imminent or very soon, not years in the future. If, for instance, you received a phone call from the...

While 'tango' did touch on the point, the discussion about Mary having taken a vow of perpetual virginity--or not--misses the fact that the Roman Catholic Church's teaching about Mary as "Ever Virgin" doesn't depend solely on whether or not she ever had sexual relations with a man. It is based...

It's an historical and devotional thing. As we know, that aspect of the Ancient and (especially) the Medieval church started with respect and progressed into all manner of misuse. Because virginity was associated with purity, the mother of Our Lord came to be lauded above all women, and...

There's no conflict there. You went on to suggest a reason why, in your personal opinion, Mary had "already taken a vow of perpetual chastity. That, however, doesn't negate your claim that she had taken such a vow (for which there is no evidence from Scripture). It's already been answered...

On the contrary, I DID give my explanation. She couldn't immediately appreciate how a non-virgin was going to give birth! That's something almost any young virgin might think immediately if put in the same situation. But then it was resolved right away when the archangel replied as he did.