When I posted the data regarding what Dr. Mancuso related I was lending support to the notion that Mary was 'under the blood of The Savior' from the moment He was placed in her body. I don't argue over whether God had intercourse with her, that's an absurd debate for a Christian to entertain. I personally believe God placed Jesus in Mary's womb as an embryo aged being, and I also believe Jesus came and went from our where/when on several occasions which indicate that He could have been born without the usual deliver method. Can I prove any of it? Of course not! But the clues are int he Bible that this other where/when exists, that Jesus moved back and forth between our where/when and this other where/when, and the science of embryology is proving stem cells from a gestating child remain alive int he mother's body perhaps right through the rest of the mother's life.
Conjecture is what I'm offering. I'm not defending the Catholic dogma or refuting any of it, just aligning facts and information found in the Bible and in science. I do find it offensive that those opposed to the Catholic dogma are so vitriolic toward Mary.
I can understand vitriol toward each other in a heated debate ... we've had it both ways, Mr. Rogers. But to malign Mary the Mother of Jesus is jumping the shark. Especially since our recent scientific discoveries hint so strongly that something of the Savior likely remained with Mary after Jesus was out of her womb.
BTW, I would be probably be as adamant against someone maligning your mother, should that twig arise. And with Mary the Mother of Jesus, we as Christians have even more reason to defend her honor.
Your point made without a slur is an important one, as far as substantiation missing for the titles Catholics give to Mary. If she were as important to Christianity as Cathoics have made her out to be, she would likely be more heralded throughout ACts and even by Paul and others. And the argument that the tradition of that day downgraded women in that society so the writers of the testaments fo the spreading Church would not raise her to such significance doesn't quite float either, because it was to women that Jesus first appeared following His resurrection. And Luke makes it clear that the men didn't accept their witness at face value, so it was not a hidden secret that there was a conflict between the position of women and the spreading Church.
I’ve lost my temper more than once on a religion thread, which is why I now avoid them as a rule.
If Catholics want to believe Mary remained a virgin, they can. I think it is quite a stretch in how one reads the NT, but for most the issue is so emotional that it isn’t possible to have a polite conversation.
It was one of the Orthodox - Kolo-something or other - who patiently explained to me that anything I wrote about Mary had the same emotional impact on him as if I had written about his own mother. So I think I’ll follow my normal rule and drop off this thread before I give more offense and stir more bitterness than I may have already done.
I have enough temptations to anger and judgment without looking for them here on FreeRepublic...and if I must find them, let it be on a political thread. My anger doesn’t give God any glory, or accomplish His will.