My reply... you will go to any lengths to defend your Maryolatry.Leaving aside the charge of "maryolatry," what lengths do you have in mind here? I don't think I went to "any lengths" but only wrote of what the words brothers and sisters can mean in real life, and therefore what we can infer from its use in the gospels. Why is this going to "any lengths?"
Let’s say she didn’t have other children (let’s just say)... Do you still insist that she is the ‘perpetual virgin’? Scripture plainly says that Joseph didn’t ‘know her’ carnally until after Jesus was born. Why point that out if he ‘never’ knew her?
In Matthew 1.25 it does say that Joseph did not know Mary until the birth of their first born son, however it doesn't imply anything like what you are saying. In Matthew 28.20 we see: And behold I am with you always, even until the end of the age. This is the same word being translated as until, and who would think of arguing that Jesus is saying after "the end of the age" he wouldn't be with us? The verse you are referring to is stating very clearly that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. It surely doesn't imply anything like what you appear to be inferring from it.
How about the ‘assumption of Mary’. Do you also subscribe to that even though it didn’t become official, but un-biblical, ‘doctrine until the 1950’s?Actually, belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is very ancient, but I don't think it is something we need to go into deeply. The Orthodox believe it, and they separated from the West about a thousand years ago.
Or the “immaculate conception’ of her who called the Son she was to bear her ‘savior’? Only sinners need a savior.
I really am reticent to go into that. I will only point out that all of this is about interpretation. None of what you are saying is written out in plain black and white. We don't see a text which lists the supposed sins of Mary, and we don't see a detailed treatise on the exact relationship between Jesus and his brothers and sisters. Neither do we have a holy table of contents at the front, with an inspired list of books to be included. All of this we have to come to through the guidance of the Spirit promised to us in the Church. The Church is the living witness of Christ in the world and it is only through her that the Bible has meaning to me. I can say, with St. Augustine, I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.
WHICH . . . is another brazen
DEMONSTRATION of Roman Catholic et al idolatry pure and simple:
And such folks seem to think we should trust them with as much as the time of day. Incredible.
Just because you don't believe or understand the scripture certainly does not mean it's not true...
Jesus said He wouldn't be with you after the end of the age...You don't believe it??? That's not the scripture's problem, it's yours...
The Church is the living witness of Christ in the world and it is only through her that the Bible has meaning to me. I can say, with St. Augustine, I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.
The church is product of the Gospel, not the other way around. Why in the world do you guys keep dodging my question?
Which “catholic church”. Churches of the Middle East which descended directly from the original Jerusalem congregation, the Byzantine Church which really was the “official roman empire” after the split, or the Roman church?