Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Dorothea]

California Josiah doesn't engage or respond to arguments or scriptural evidence that answer his questions.

He just keep on attacking, changes direction, introduces something new, makes snide comment here or there, always keeping Catholics, EO's and others here on the defence. And then he feigns surprise or offence when he is called on it.

I will no longer converse with him on this topic precisely because of this. It's like talking with a JackChick.com subscriber.

He is not interested in a dialogue, only in his monologues.

For this reason I absented myself from our discussion long ago.

PAX

I don't follow CJ's posts because they seem to be the same thing over and over and c&ping and really, he seems to ignore all the information set forth, given to him, so what's the point?

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

I don't follow CJ's posts because they seem to be the same thing over and over and c&ping and really, he seems to ignore all the information set forth, given to him, so what's the point?

Indeed.

 

[Philothei]

Your daughter is offended because she understands you mean that she has already conceived outside of wedlock."You are going to have a baby." But she doesn't ask you how she will have a baby, does she?

Nice try, but no cigar.

PAX

Yep that is the whole point.. It is obvious Mary would not concieve for she had made a vow... That was truly a shocking thing coming from God... and thus her reaction. I "know no man" for she knew Joseph... her fiance.. Why act surprised? For she had a vow of chastity simple enough!

 

[Philothei]

All these irrelevant detours are frustrating.

Evidence to her virginity and her vow is NOT irrelevant neither is the evidence from the Fathers of the Church who explain the grammar. In Greek the present tense has a future continious connotation. All here have presented that...

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Yep that is the whole point.. It is obvious Mary would not concieve for she had made a vow... That was truly a shocking thing coming from God... and thus her reaction. I "know no man" for she knew Joseph... her fiance.. Why act surprised? For she had a vow of chastity simple enough!

Simple enough that there was no debate about it for, what, 1500 years?

 

[Thekla]

Your daughter is offended because she understands you mean that she has already conceived outside of wedlock."You are going to have a baby." But she doesn't ask you how she will have a baby, does she?

Nice try, but no cigar.

PAX

To add, Gabriel does not say "will conceive", but uses the verb for conceive in the future tense .

To indicate the future tense of conceive in English requires the helping verb - "will".

The full sense of the Greek verb cannot be translated.

 

[Dorothea]

It clearly shows deliberate intention, which if iterated would be a vow.

Thank you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Simple enough that there was no debate about it for, what, 1500 years?

1. Please document for me that since 31 AD, it has been believed, taught and confessed that Mary made a vow to God and that the specific, particular content of said vow was "I will have no sex ever."


2. Please document for me that since 31 AD, it has been embraced that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.


IMO, to say there has been "NO DEBATE" on this - from 31 AD to 1531 AD - requires that there was some view to debate, and seems to imply that this was taught for 1500 years everywhere: That Mary made a vow to God and that the specific, particular content of said vow was "I will have no sex ever" and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I'm not sure how your apologetic relates to the issue (Christians often believed the world was flat too, and Gnosticism has been with us for a lot more than 1500 years), but in any case, the position is irrelevant to anything unless you can show it's true.







.

 

[justinangel]

I am sorry..... they both indicate present and future... but it is Mary's response that indicates HOW she received the news... just like my daughter.

Your assumption is that Mary incorrectly understood the message as in "in the future"

My assumption is that Mary understood correctly, the angel was speaking of present... before she is going to be with man. And low and behold, she got preggers on the same day/ within that 24 hour period.

Even if I had no assumption, your assumption proves nothing of her vow of perpetual virginity. It simply doesn't.

If I had gone to the doctors and he did an exam on me and declared..

"Annaclair, you WILL have a baby!" I would most certainly understand him to mean that I am with child!

You certainly would understand what your doctor is telling you if you have already had relations with your husband. But the angel doesn't say to Mary "you are with child", but rather "you will conceive". She isn't with child yet. If she were, the angel would have said "you have conceived."

PAX

 

[mrmccormo]

having been reading the excellent information given and explained, would you say Mary's question to Gabriel about knowing no man would indeed equal a vow to God to remain a virgin?

Good question. At the very least, that verse points to a possibility, and a possibility builds the case for Mary's perpetual virginity. What some people here fail to realize is that this entire discussion hinges on the compilation of evidences (instead of explicit facts), since the Bible does not completely rule out either option. Mary's perpetual virginity is not plainly stated in the Bible, but on the other hand, the Bible never says "and then Joseph knew his wife" or something like that.

So, we have to compile evidence.

Right now, here is the case:

- the Scripture is not explicit either way (although this or that verse might be used to support either stance). Therefore, we must search further.

- the writings of the early early church could be used, except that all we have is what is found in the Bible. Trying to find this doctrine in early writings is nearly impossible, just like trying to find explicit doctrine on the Trinity. Of course, discounting the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity simple because it isn't explicitly found in the very first, very earliest writings is silly and hypocritical: there are dozens of Christian doctrines (like sola scriptura, once-saved-always-saved, sola fide, dispensationalism, Augustine's original sin, etc) that are not found in the very earliest writings. Why do we apply a double standard?

- early church tradition seems to indicate that early Christians believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is best evidenced by the non-canonical book Protoevangelium of James. Since this book is held as evidence, but not infallible Scripture, we must dig deeper.

- Once the severe persecution of Christianity ceased in the 4th century, immediately we see a written record from many different church fathers that profess the perpetual virginity. This is important to note, because this was the first time in the Church's history when a person wasn't killed or imprisoned simply for stating their beliefs, which explains why doctrines like Mary's perpetual virginity were not explicitly declared during the Church's persecution.

- Of course, the writing of the early church fathers isn't evidence enough, so we much follow it through history. Many different heresies came and went, the Church explored the details of many specific issues (like the single/dual wills of Christ) and laid out a lot of doctrine through ecumenical councils. Despite the fact that dozens of major heresies (and who knows how many smaller, local heresies) were rooted out of the church, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was never touched.

- All throughout Church history, Christians continued to hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary as truth. From Rome to Jerusalem, everyone preserved the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Even after the East/West split (and even the smaller splits with the Coptics, Oriental church, etc), the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity remained intact.

- In the 16th century, the Reformers began their work in the West. Of all the reforms, of all the doctrines that were culled, of all the "Papist" teachings that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin gutted from Christianity, Mary's perpetual virginity was not touched. In fact, all three aforementioned Reformers were very clear that they believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Luther is on the record for remarking (paraphrase): "My opponents want to slander me by saying I preach that Mary, mother of Jesus, did not remain a perpetual virgin, but I do not preach that."

- As Western Christianity became increasingly "anti-Catholic", sometimes simply for the sake of being "anti-Catholic" instead of truly trying to follow the Bible, many doctrines fell by the wayside. It was not until the 17th century (during the secular Age of Enlightenment) that Christian leaders began questioning the perpetual virginity of Mary.

- So, here's the wrap-up: for ~1,500 years, the entire Christian church believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Despite schisms, splits, heresies, and disagreements, the entire Church held to this doctrine. It was only during the post-Reformation era (when a lot of Protestants began taking doctrinal stances for the sole purpose of being "anti-Catholic") when Mary's perpetual virginity was questioned.

Someone, if you think that Mary's perpetual virginity is a false doctrine, then I challenge you to do this: show me ONE, just ONE other doctrine that was accepted by both the Catholic and the Orthodox church (even post-split) for 1,500 years that also ended up being false. Just ONE! If the 1,500 years of acceptance of the perpetual virginity of Mary means nothing to you, then show me ANOTHER doctrine that meets all of the rigorous criteria that this one does and ALSO turned out to be "false" in your eyes.

I'm very eager to see what anyone comes up with.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Evidence to her virginity and her vow is NOT irrelevant neither is the evidence

If you present it, I WILL consider it.

So far, nothing has been revealed to confirm She made a specific vow to God and the specific content herein was "I shall have no sex EVER." And nothing has been presented to date about the status of Her sex life at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath?). When it is, we can discuss it.

In Greek the present tense has a future continious connotation. All here have presented that...

Even IF so, and even though you seem so willing to reject ancient Tradition on this point, the PRESENT ACTIVE does not confirm future reality. "I AM a virgin" does not confirm that at the moment of my death (or not), I shall BE a virgin.






.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

1. Please document for me that since 31 AD, it has been believed, taught and confessed that Mary made a vow to God and that the specific, particular content of said vow was "I will have no sex ever."


2. Please document for me that since 31 AD, it has been embraced that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.


IMO, to say there has been "NO DEBATE" on this - from 31 AD to 1531 AD - requires that there was some view to debate, and seems to imply that this was taught for 1500 years everywhere: That Mary made a vow to God and that the specific, particular content of said vow was "I will have no sex ever" and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I'm not sure how your apologetic relates to the issue (Christians often believed the world was flat too, and Gnosticism has been with us for a lot more than 1500 years), but in any case, the position is irrelevant to anything unless you can show it's true.







.

All the evidence has been provided for you on this thread. Why bother going over everything all over again just for you to ignore it? I don't have the time.

 

[Dorothea]

Good question. At the very least, it is a possibility, and a possibility builds the case for Mary's perpetual virginity. What some people here fail to realize is that this entire discussion hinges on the compilation of evidences (instead of explicit facts), since the Bible does not completely rule out either option. Mary's perpetual virginity is not plainly stated in the Bible, but on the other hand, the Bible never says "and then Joseph knew his wife" or something like that.

So, we have to compile evidence.

Right now, here is the case:

- the Scripture is not explicit either way (although this or that verse might be used to support either stance). Therefore, we must search further.

- the writings of the early early church could be used, except that all we have is what is found in the Bible. Trying to find this doctrine in early writings is nearly impossible, just like trying to find explicit doctrine on the Trinity. Of course, discounting the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity simple because it isn't explicitly found in the very first, very earliest writings is silly and hypocritical: there are dozens of Christian doctrines (like sola scriptura, once-saved-always-saved, sola fide, dispensationalism, Augustine's original sin, etc) that are not found in the very earliest writings. Why do we apply a double standard?

- early church tradition seems to indicate that early Christians believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is best evidenced by the non-canonical book Protoevangelium of James. Since this book is held as evidence, but not infallible Scripture, we must dig deeper.

- Once the severe persecution of Christianity ceased in the 4th century, immediately we see a written record from many different church fathers that profess the perpetual virginity. This is important to note, because this was the first time in the Church's history when a person wasn't killed or imprisoned simply for stating their beliefs, which explains why doctrines like Mary's perpetual virginity were not explicitly declared during the Church's persecution.

- Of course, the writing of the early church fathers isn't evidence enough, so we much follow it through history. Many different heresies came and went, the Church explored the details of many specific issues (like the single/dual wills of Christ) and laid out a lot of doctrine through ecumenical councils. Despite the fact that dozens of major heresies (and who knows how many smaller, local heresies) were rooted out of the church, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was never touched.

- All throughout Church history, Christians continued to hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary as truth. From Rome to Jerusalem, everyone preserved the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Even after the East/West split (and even the smaller splits with the Coptics, Oriental church, etc), the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity remained intact.

- In the 16th century, the Reformers began their work in the West. Of all the reforms, of all the doctrines that were culled, of all the "Papist" teachings that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin gutted from Christianity, Mary's perpetual virginity was not touched. In fact, all three aforementioned Reformers were very clear that they believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Luther is on the record for remarking (paraphrase): "My opponents want to slander me by saying I preach that Mary, mother of Jesus, did not remain a perpetual virgin, but I do not preach that."

- As Western Christianity became increasingly "anti-Catholic", sometimes simply for the sake of being "anti-Catholic" instead of truly trying to follow the Bible, many doctrines fell by the wayside. It was not until the 17th century (during the secular Age of Enlightenment) that Christian leaders began questioning the perpetual virginity of Mary.

- So, here's the wrap-up: for ~1,500 years, the entire Christian church believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Despite schisms, splits, heresies, and disagreements, the entire Church held to this doctrine. It was only during the post-Reformation era (when a lot of Protestants began taking doctrinal stances for the sole purpose of being "anti-Catholic") when Mary's perpetual virginity was questioned.

Someone, if you think that Mary's perpetual virginity is a false doctrine, then I challenge you to do this: show me ONE, just ONE other doctrine that was accepted by both the Catholic and the Orthodox church (even post-split) for 1,500 years that also ended up being false. Just ONE! If the 1,500 years of acceptance of the perpetual virginity of Mary means nothing to you, then show me ANOTHER doctrine that meets all of the rigorous criteria that this one does and ALSO turned out to be "false" in your eyes.

I'm very eager to see what anyone comes up with.

That's very compelling.

 

[Thekla]

You certainly would understand what your doctor is telling you if you have already had relations with your husband. But the angel doesn't say to Mary "you are with child", but rather "you will conceive". She isn't with child yet. If she were, the angel would have said "you have conceived."

PAX

Exactly; and the Greek doesn't need a helping verb (will) to convey the verb συλλαμβάνω in the future tense.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You certainly would understand what your doctor is telling you if you have already had relations with your husband. But the angel doesn't say to Mary "you are with child", but rather "you will conceive". She isn't with child yet. If she were, the angel would have said "you have conceived."

1. Prophecy is almost always given in the future tense. It is baseless (and frankly absurd) that Prophecy always indicates fulfillment at the moment of one's death (or undeath). As has been admitted already, this prophecy is INDEFINITE in terms of time. It is EQUALLY possible that the fulfillment would be one microsecond in the future as it is that it will be at the moment of our death (or undeath, depending on your view there).


2. Mary does not answer, "How can this be since I will die without ever once having sex?" She says, "How can this be since I AM a virgin?"


3. I realize some here seem to claim to be infallible mind readers, even of persons they've never met and who died (or didn't) nearly 2000 years ago, but their claimed ability aside, there is NOTHING in this text that indicates that Mary expected the fulfillment of the Prophecy to be 10, 20, 30 or 50 years in the future - much less at the moment of Her death (or undeath). In fact, it seems far more reasonable, that She would have made a very different reply in a very different tense if she had. Thus, the whole apologetic crashes and is baseless.


4. I'm amazed, I truly am, that one can shout "We MUST hold to Tradition!" and then, without so much as taking a breath, insist, "We MUST toss aside Tradition!" The ancient Tradition is that the Incarnation of Jesus and the Annunciation to Mary happened ON THE SAME DAY - which is why Catholics celebrate the Annunciation on March 25 (do the math). So, the ancients have stated that Mary was CORRECT in using the present active tense, that Mary UNDERSTOOD and so indicates with the present active tense, and Mary's question makes perfectly good sense - because She understood, She was correct: this prophecy was not something that would happen at the moment of Her death ("I WILL BE a virgin at that moment") but rather is an immediate thing. I see nothing that powerfully confirms that either (although it makes a LOT more sense than what is being speculated here) but that IS the ancient Tradition, being dismissed and ignored by those insisting that Tradition is to be embraced.







.

 

[Philothei]

"I will have no sex ever"

Could you perhaps show us that at the times of Mary that is how they would express that concept? For I cannot fathom Mary having said that for her times ... Thus the use of Ever Virginity or vow of EV of the Fathers...

 

[Thekla]

So far, nothing has been revealed to confirm She made a specific vow to God and the specific content herein was "I shall have no sex EVER." And nothing has been presented to date about the status of Her sex life at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath?). When it is, we can discuss it.

Who can make a vow to be a hermaphrodite or androgyne

 

[Philothei]

1. Prophecy is almost always given in the future tense. It is baseless (and frankly absurd) that Prophecy always indicates fulfillment at the moment of one's death (or undeath). As has been admitted already, this prophecy is INDEFINITE in terms of time. It is EQUALLY possible that the fulfillment would be one microsecond in the future as it is that it will be at the moment of our death (or undeath, depending on your view there).


2. Mary does not answer, "How can this be since I will die without ever once having sex?" She says, "How can this be since I AM a virgin?"


3. I realize some here seem to claim to be infallible mind readers, even of persons they've never met and who died (or didn't) nearly 2000 years ago, but their claimed ability aside, there is NOTHING in this text that indicates that Mary expected the fulfillment of the Prophecy to be 10, 20, 30 or 50 years in the future - much less at the moment of Her death (or undeath). In fact, it seems far more reasonable, that She would have made a very different reply in a very different tense if she had. Thus, the whole apologetic crashes and is baseless.


4. I'm amazed, I truly am, that one can shout "We MUST hold to Tradition!" and then, without so much as taking a breath, insist, "We MUST toss aside Tradition!" The ancient Tradition is that the Incarnation of Jesus and the Annunciation to Mary happened ON THE SAME DAY - which is why Catholics celebrate the Annunciation on March 25 (do the math). So, the ancients have stated that Mary was CORRECT in using the present active tense, that Mary UNDERSTOOD and so indicates with the present active tense, and Mary's question makes perfectly good sense - because She understood, She was correct: this prophecy was not something that would happen at the moment of Her death ("I WILL BE a virgin at that moment") but rather is an immediate thing. I see nothing that powerfully confirms that either (although it makes a LOT more sense than what is being speculated here) but that IS the ancient Tradition, being dismissed and ignored by those insisting that Tradition is to be embraced.







.

Read Jerome and let me know what you think of his treatise.... It is quite interesting. Let's discuss this

 

[washedagain]

You certainly would understand what your doctor is telling you if you have already had relations with your husband. But the angel doesn't say to Mary "you are with child", but rather "you will conceive". She isn't with child yet. If she were, the angel would have said "you have conceived."

PAX

REEEEEEEEEEEEEgardless... if my daughter, who is virgin went to the doctor and the doctor said... you WILL conceive and have a child in her present condition of being a virgin... she still could very possibly respond in the present tense like MARY DID! How can this be, I know not a man???????????

Mary's response is what you guys are hedging your bet on... reading between the lines that her response is indicative of perpetual-ness of her virginity.... the reality is... she does not say that she will never not know a man.

It simply is not there.

Is there a possibility that she MEANT never..... yes.... Is this proof that she MEANT never.... no.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

REEEEEEEEEEEEEgardless... if my daughter, who is virgin went to the doctor and the doctor said... you WILL conceive and have a child in her present condition of being a virgin... she still could very possibly respond in the present tense like MARY DID! How can this be, I know not a man???????????

Mary's response is what you guys are hedging your bet on... reading between the lines that her response is indicative of perpetual-ness of her virginity.... the reality is... she does not say that she will never not know a man.

It simply is not there.

Is there a possibility that she MEANT never..... yes.... Is this proof that she MEANT never.... no.

I thought it was explained exceedingly well that the grammar in Greek is different than in English. It's not reading between the lines; it is understanding what is said in the original Greek correctly.