[al_c]

Upset? I'm not upset. I find the whole thing quite laughable. Not Mary's egg? Puh-leeze. I'm still waiting for someone from the non-Catholic side to take that one on. There is no biblical evidence to support such a claim. Quester said he sided with Dave, but there's still not much in the way of rebuking that erroneous statement.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

There is no biblical evidence to support such a claim.

Good. Since the biblical evidence is essentional you shouldn't be oppossed to showing us some biblical evidence to support Perpetual Virginity and assumption and stuff like that.

[OLD REGGIE]

Upset? I'm not upset. I find the whole thing quite laughable. Not Mary's egg? Puh-leeze. I'm still waiting for someone from the non-Catholic side to take that one on. There is no biblical evidence to support such a claim. Quester said he sided with Dave, but there's still not much in the way of rebuking that erroneous statement.

I won't take it on simply because I had never heard this novel idea before, and after considering it, I decided it made no difference.

Do you find more Biblical support for the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary?

BTW, I do agree the "Mary" thing is close to an obsession with biblewonk. On the other hand, I find some of his postings interesting and I find no lies in anything he has posted.

[CindyDawg]

Not Mary's egg? Puh-leeze. I'm still waiting for someone from the non-Catholic side to take that one on. There is no biblical evidence to support such a claim.

I could give you all kinds of A/P data on why this wouldn't work but with God anything is possible. I guess if he figured we needed to know how he did it, he would have told us. Why is this so important? Either way is fine with me It's the results that count, right?