[bornacatholic]

Isn't it, um, interesting you take your leave ten posts AFTER I pinged you and you didn't respond.

I 'spose some might speculate it is because I engaged in scriptual exegesis in a way guaranteed to make even sola scriptura types blanche and yet the sola scriptura types would have no cause for objection and, therefore, in their silence, demonstrate the unreliability of their own Rule of Faith.

Who can say...

[wagglebee]

They never really wanted to respond to my post #1885 from yesterday either.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1748533/posts?page=1885#1885

[Blogger]

I s'pose you might speculate that it was because my life doesn't revolve around your posts.

[jo kus]

Something that struck me today was reading about how Mary was considered "virgin" in the earliest Church liturgy. Now, why would Christians call Mary a virgin IF she had given birth to other children? Can we not assume that if someone is a virgin, it means that they are STILL a virgin (in other words, when we call someone a virgin, they are still one, not that they ONCE were but are no longer).

There would be NO reason to call Mary a virgin IF she had other kids after Jesus because SHE WOULDN'T BE ONE anymore! Thus, the Liturgy is proof that the earliest of Christians knew she was a virgin AFTER Christ.

This bit of logic struck me as "Duh, why didn't you see this before?" and I thought I'd share it with you.

Regards