Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

Another dodge, CalifornianJosiah.

I asked a simple question: why must we document from a pre-100AD source the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

It's a simple question.

Clearly, you see a need because we've documented what Martin Luther believes on the subject (as well as the other reformers), we've documented what the ecumenical councils said on the subject, we've documented what church fathers said on the subject (over the course of 1,500 years). We've even shown evidence within Scripture.

Yet, all of these methods "fail" in your mind because you keep demanding that we produce a pre-100AD documentation of this doctrine.

Why? Please justify your position.

Because then we will have provided greater evidence for this position than anyone has for the apostolic authenticity of NT Scripture.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I asked a simple question: why must we document from a pre-100AD source the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? It's a simple question.

And it has been answered, so often I'm now likely violating the rules here at CF.


You keep IGNORING that I'm not the one making the claim. It is being stated, NOT BY ME or by Protestants or by those silent on Mary's sex life, but my DEFENDERS of the dogmatic fact of this specific vow, the particular content thereof, and the greatest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER, that it is such because (and these are verbatim quotes), "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV." "All those during the time of the Apostles believed this." "All those before 150 AD believed this." It's the apologetic given for confirming to the level claims that this specific vow of Mary was given, the particular content thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Friend, I don't know if you simply think truth is irrelevant to anything or if you simply think a fact given as the basis of an apologetic is simply irrelevant if one is defending a view of two denominations. But normally, a fact that is the basis of the apologetic needs to be deemed correct for it to have any relevance to the apologetic and the discussion. Surely you know that. For SOME reason (and I don't claim to be Dr. Phil), it REALLY bothers you when anything claimed by any member of the RC or EO denominations is asked to confirm a point made - even when it's the very basis of their apologetic of a DOGMA.

Clearly, you see a need because we've documented what Martin Luther believes on the subject

1. You likely know that Luther didn't live in 33 AD. Or during the time of the Apostles. Or before 150 AD.


2. You likely know that Luther didn't profess this as dogma.


3. I'm confused, so I'll ask once again. Is your position that if Luther believed something, that's confirmation to the level of dogma that it's true? If so, should I quote him on the Pope?

Why? Please justify your position.

AGAIN (Staff, he keeps asking!!!!), because when a point is stated as the basis of an apologetic, it matters if that fact is true. AGAIN, if I stated that "the majority of Christians since 33 AD that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty that Martin Luther was incapable of being wrong on anything he said," would you think it relevant at all whether the basis of the apologetic was true, that is IS true that "the majority of Christians since 33 AD" believed that?




You laid out all the apologetics on this. You even seemed to admit how weak it was, how it did not support that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER - and actually did an amazingly GOOD job of laying out why it might be on better ground to be silent on this - as are all but 2 denominations, and as it seems as were Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, all the penmen of Scripture and everyone who even had the theoretical possibility of knowing this tidbit of bedroom information. I commented on each of your points, but you refused to discuss my comments.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Having a no position indeed IMHO means someone does not care to form one


.

Well, I have no dogma on how often you have sex. Does that mean I don't care to form a dogma on that? Might it rather mean that either I don't consider how often you have sex to be an issue of highest importance to all people? Or simply that I don't have sufficient data on which to dogmatically state?






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It's a bit shaky to claim that simply because there exists a Greek word for "never" and Mary didn't use it so therefore she didn't mean "never".

Friend, you seem to be getting positions reversed. NO non-RCC or non-EOC is suggesting they have done a "mind meld" or are infallible "mind readers" of Mary and ergo know dogmatically what she MEANT but didn't say.

YOU have boldly admitted (more than I've been willing to do) that the text here could go either way, and that Scriptures can be used to support EITHER view (and I assume you mean also NO view). So, pray tell, how your position mean that ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER, and that such is confirmed because some KNOW because of some mind melt or mind reading?





.

 

[mrmccormo]

CalifornianJosiah,

"The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV"

is not the same thing as

"The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD documented their belief in the EV"

You are applying unreasonably harsh standards to this doctrine. In support of our belief that "it has been believed since the beginning", we have offered numerous evidences and quotes to support our belief.

You keep IGNORING that I'm not the one making the claim.

False. You are indeed making many claims: you claim that only two denominations believe this doctrine. You claim that in order for our view to be true, we need to produce two pre-100AD documents to prove it. You claim that the Protoevangelium of James is invalid.

You're making plenty of claims, all without backing them up.

I'll ask again: from an objective standpoint, why do you require that a pre-100AD, extra-Biblical documentation of the perpetual virginity of Mary be produced? Explain why that pre-100AD documentation is essential and the 1,000s of years of quotes we have offered is immaterial.

YOU have boldly admitted (more than I've been willing to do) that the text here could go either way, and that Scriptures can be used to support EITHER view

You're misquoting me. I said that the Scriptures (as in, the Bible) have verses that support either stance. I did not say that every single verse on the topic could go either way. There are verses which seem to clearly indicate she remained a virgin, and there are verses which indicate the opposite. Please stop twisting my words.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In support of our belief that "it has been believed since the beginning", we have offered numerous evidences and quotes to support our belief.

Not yet.

You claim that in order for our view to be true, we need to produce two pre-100AD documents to prove it. You claim that the Protoevangelium of James is invalid.

I don't think you are reading my posts...

What I said is for the apologetic to have relevance, it needs to be substantiated. AGAIN, if I posted, "it has been believed by the majority of Christians the Pope is gay" as the apologetic for a dogma that The Pope is Gay, then it seems relevant to ME that the basis of the apologetic be shown to be true. I realize you PASSIONATELY disagree, but I've given up trying to understand why.

NO, what I said is that the Protoevangelium of James is regarded as noncanonical and nonauthoritative - it is a rejected book (looked in your Bible lately) but more important, that it doesn't state that Mary Had No Sex Ever. It's another foundational point to an apologetic used that no one even bothered to reveal as true (you seem to think it's irrelevant whether apologetics are true or not).

You're making plenty of claims, all without backing them up.

Again, you seem to be getting our views entirely reversed. Still.


YOU (and 2 denominations with you) claim Mary made a specific vow to God, claim to know the precise content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER. As you rather boldly pointed out (in a post you seem to not want to discuss), actually - the support for that is amazingly weak and actually, the position of all others (silence) is far better supported. Who has not backed up the dogma is you. But I'm being ever so patient and still very engaged.

I'll ask again: from an objective standpoint, why do you require that a pre-100AD, extra-Biblical documentation of the perpetual virginity of Mary be produced? Explain why that pre-100AD documentation is essential and the 1,000s of years of quotes we have offered is immaterial.

I HONESTLY don't think I can repeat this YET AGAIN without getting a warning. Read what I have said to you MANY times before on this exact question. I've answered it. At least a dozen times.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV


.

If that's the required evidence of a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth, then let's see the confirmation of that.


I want to be MUCH "nicer" than Protestants are treated here, so rather than mandating that you prove that at least 51% of ALL believers from 33 AD through today affirmed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER, I'll make it ever so easy for you: Quote from just 2 Christians who lived before 100 AD who state that Mary had no sex ever. Just two (not 51% of all Christians ever to have lived), I don't even question whether they are Christians or not. But be sure it's before 100 AD and that the point of the quote is that She NEVER had sex. I'm just making this MUCH easier to you. I'll wait for that. Thanks!







.

 

[Dorothea]

Was Mary told "you are with child right now"? No. If she was, then her comment would make sense. She would have been curious why she was with child when she was still a virgin.

Was Mary told "you will conceive out of wedlock"? No. If she was, then her comment would make sense. She would have been horrified that an angel was saying she would commit premarital sex and conceive a child before she was married!

Was Mary told "you will conceive"? Yes. Since she was about to be married, and according to Jewish customs and culture (and other references in the Bible), she SHOULD have replied "Horray! Praise the Lord". But is that what she said? No. She was puzzled. She was puzzled by how she could conceive at any time in the future. Now, unless she knew that she was sterile (and how could she know?), there is only one other explanation: Mary had made some sort of committment to remain a virgin.

Yep. Sounds logical to me.

 

[Dorothea]

The question becomes - does a decision of the heart (gnomi) described as an ongoing condition or state need to be iterated in order to be a vow ?

Nobody answered my question several pages back on other virgins/celibates in the Bible. Did any of them actually make a vow of celibacy? Did they actually say that, using the word vow, or one similar, or was it implied or a given in these people's cases? I'm asking you, Thekla, because you know Bible history and Jewish history pretty well (as well as Philothei). Hopefully you can answer this question.

 

[Dorothea]

Well, I have no dogma on how often you have sex.

Does that mean I don't care to form a dogma on that? Might it rather mean that either I don't consider how often you have sex to be an issue of highest importance to all people? Or simply that I don't have sufficient data on which to dogmatically state?

.

Josiah, it seems to me that you don't understand what we're talking about or what the Church Fathers meant, or why people were virgins/celibates in the Bible. It had little to do with not having sex.

 

[Philothei]

.


[/size]
[/size][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font]




If that's the required evidence of a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth, then let's see the confirmation of that.


I want to be MUCH "nicer" than Protestants are treated here, so rather than mandating that you prove that at least 51% of ALL believers from 33 AD through today affirmed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER, I'll make it ever so easy for you: Quote from just 2 Christians who lived before 100 AD who state that Mary had no sex ever. Just two (not 51% of all Christians ever to have lived), I don't even question whether they are Christians or not. But be sure it's before 100 AD and that the point of the quote is that She NEVER had sex. I'm just making this MUCH easier to you. I'll wait for that. Thanks!







.

Why? I truly believe in the Church being my guide to these truths that are dogmatic in nature...Do you want evidence that Christians believed in the Holy Trinity? It was not even written down..as that. But still they did believed that Christ was God. That the Paraklete was the Holy Spirit not "explained" as it is now but still they all believed that the tree persons of the Trinity was God... Maybe we should ask for evidence for that too...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, it had little to do with not having sex.

So, The Dogma of the EVER Virgin Mary and the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary has little to do with her not having sex? If She did have sex, that would have no meaningful impact on this dogma?




.

 

[Philothei]

.



[/size][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font]


Well, I have no dogma on how often you have sex. Does that mean I don't care to form a dogma on that? Might it rather mean that either I don't consider how often you have sex to be an issue of highest importance to all people? Or simply that I don't have sufficient data on which to dogmatically state?






.

I am not the topic...If I thought I was Virgin Mary ...maybe... hehe.. I guess the Fathers were "curious" according to you then...But it is not so my friend. The fathers were NOT curious they were defending God's mystery...of the incarnation. True no one cares or should care about me...that would be indeed no ones beeswax.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Josiah, it seems to me that you don't understand what we're talking about or what the Church Fathers meant, or why people were virgins/celibates in the Bible. It had little to do with not having sex.

He won't engage with this argument. It does not mention the word "vow."

 

[Philothei]

[If She did have sex, that would have no meaningful impact on this dogma?



[/QUOTE]

Actually it would as Christ would not have been the "only begotten son of God" already have gone that round have we?

 

[Dorothea]

I wish people wouldn't try to explain what the Greek means to a Greek Orthodox, one of which is a theology grad. and to the Greek Orthodox Church. If anybody knows, this Church does. It preserved the teachings in Greek and knows what it says.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV


.​

​

If that's the required evidence of a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth, then let's see the confirmation of that.


I want to be MUCH "nicer" than Protestants are treated here, so rather than mandating that you prove that at least 51% of ALL believers from 33 AD through today affirmed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER, I'll make it ever so easy for you: Quote from just 2 Christians who lived before 100 AD who state that Mary had no sex ever. Just two (not 51% of all Christians ever to have lived), I don't even question whether they are Christians or not. But be sure it's before 100 AD and that the point of the quote is that She NEVER had sex. I'm just making this MUCH easier to you. I'll wait for that.

Why?

Because you said it was true. Does it matter if it is?

Because you gave that as the basis of an apologetic for this Dogma. The apologetic is irrelevant if it's not true.





.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

I wish people wouldn't try to explain what the Greek means to a Greek Orthodox, one of which is a theology grad. and to the Greek Orthodox Church. If anybody knows, this Church does. It preserved the teachings in Greek and knows what it says.

AMEN!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually it would as Christ would not have been the "only begotten son of God"

There is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs" (at least that I know of).
Nor is that the dogma we can discuss here.
THIS thread (and the permitted discussion) is about the dogma of 2 denominations that Mary Had No Sex EVER and more specifically, a specific vow it is said Mary made to God and the claimed known content thereof.





.

 

[Dorothea]

If She did have sex, that would have no meaningful impact on this dogma?

Actually it would as Christ would not have been the "only begotten son of God" already have gone that round have we?

Yes. All dogma points back to Christ and the Trinity.