Replies

Nor did they bear witness to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. Yet these occured. I suppose you are saying that such a remarkable event would have been recorded. But could it not be simply that they did not hear of it? What we can all accept is the fact that Mary did not loom large in the public affairs of the Church. To the Church, her great standing is all in retrospect, as we wonder the nature of her son. According to one story she passed away in Jerusalem only a few years after Pentecost, where she is last mentioned. Yet she as the Virgin Mother is crucial to any discussion of the true nature of Christ. It was no accident that during the 4th Century, many churches were dedicated in her honor as her son was accepted as divine even by the Roman emperor. She is theotokos, and so the person who mattered so little to the world of the First Century, becomes of of the most celebrated of persons as the mother of Our Lord. The meek and subservient maiden become the Queen of heaven.

Mary birthed the flesh body, and she had absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation/formation of the Spirit, Emmanuel, means God with us, that was placed into her womb.

Now the fixation upon flesh and calling a fellow servant Queen of heaven does NOT come from the WORD, but of old early traditions where some goddess mated with this or that god and birthed little gods.

“Nor did they bear witness to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. Yet these occured.”

Yes, like you, I believe they did. However, I don’t base my theology on the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul. If they died of old age it would not alter my doctrine one bit.

That is the difference. Catholic doctrine is based very largely on extrabiblical notions of what Mary did, didn’t do, what happened to her, etc.

I don’t think we should base any of of doctrines on extra-Biblical teachings.