[wagglebee]

I trust if my posts break the rules they'll be deleted.

Well guess what, it was.

There is no Scriptural support for Mary's continuing virginity after Christ was born; for her sinless life; for her bodily assumption into heaven; for her repeated reappearances on earth; for her "intact hymen after childbirth;" nor for her blasphemous titles of "co-mediator" and "co-redeemer."

Don't confuse Scriptural support with personal beliefs. As I pointed out earlier, from the viewpoint of a Jew there is no Scriptural support for Christianity.

[1000 silverlings]

well then explain why so many Jews have converted to Christianity

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Well, that's a surprise. I didn't criticize anyone personally. I'd like to know where my comment broke the rules.

"We've been through this kind of lying before. RC apologists can't argue from Scripture, so they rewrite other people's comments and then discuss those fictitious rewrites."

I made that statement because Roman Catholic apologists had just rewritten my comment and responded to their own rewrite of my statement as if I had written it which is common practice among some RC apologists.

As I said, that is a pathetic way to argue.

As I pointed out earlier, from the viewpoint of a Jew there is no Scriptural support for Christianity.

Then good thing neither of us is a Jew.