Luke [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hello.gif" alt="hello" title="hello[/img]<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I don't mean to be rude, and I don't profess to understand the whole issue being discussed here, but as for Mary's virginity, it would seem to be for the most part a non issue, and really a lousy place to build a doctrine about Mary since the Bible is very clear that Jesus was born of a Virgin and that yes indeed Mary got married to Joseph</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>for the RCC surely it is not a "non issue". But just from this one doctrine, it can be easily seen how they prefer "traditions" over the scripture. The lenghts at which they go to teach this "dogma" just goes to show how they would do with any other. Matitics threw every trick and smokescream I think I have ever seen. Even went as so far to misquote Josephus dogmatically; in response Eric asked him to give him the correct citation for it after the debate. To my knowledge it never happened. James White even questioned him on this in the following debate. Initially,He basically try to pretend that He didn't know what White was referring to, and then tried to wiesel out. It was kind of funny, IMHO. But in any case, I thought the debate was good because it shows the tactics used by RCC apologists in defending their dogmas, which would be clearly seen as conflicting with scripture. Nevertheless, that does not stop them. I guess this will open up another can...[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos<br><br>

"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)