Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Philothei]

It's not that anyone is trying to "achieve" anything at all. Since we are all flawed Christians trying to follow Christ, we're doing our best to learn God's message. We've noticed that the early Christians believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and since they did a pretty good job creating our Bible, we figure we should also pay attention to some of the other things they said.

At least, that's where I'm coming from. I cannot speak for all people.

Very well said

We do trust the "parakatathiki" the covenant we were given as the Apostle says that we should keep it. Mary had an ONLYbegotten Son so did God it would be an oximoron and pretty confusing to have more kids. Thus the only way to safeguard this would be for her not to have relations.

 

[washedagain]

=mrmccormo;58330505]You are incorrect: the canon of the Bible has been preserved and protected by God's Church. There is no infallible document that says "Thus saith the Lord, here are the 77 Bible books you should use".

I think God is quite apt to protect His word... he used men to do it but all the glory goes to God, not man.

If you ignore the value of the Church, you ignore history and you ignore Scripture.

I never said anything about the value of the body of Christ. Not sure why you are posting this.

Most of the "earliest writers" (outside of the Bible itself) are found in the 4th century, and they are definitely NOT silent on the issue.

Again, never said otherwise. I affirmed that early writers (if you can call early 400 years later) speak of Mary's perpetual virginity. I never once said they were silent. I said the earliest (that would be 1st century) are silent on the subject.

Of course, I've already established that just because a writer is silent on the matter does not mean that the Tradition of the Church was silent on the matter.

Again, never said you didn't.

So, I stand by what I said. The early church was persecuted, killed, and driven out of cities.

Yes of course. Never said they weren't. Are you suggesting that they were because of Mary's perpetual virginity? Not sure why you are going there????

Yet they managed to preserve the truth, and the perpetual virginity of Mary was among the truths they preserved. That is why I pay attention to it.

I know that is what you believe... I am simply asking you to show me your evidence from the beginning. It has been said over and over and over again on this thread that it has ALWAYS BEEN BELIEVED FROM THE BEGINNING. I would like to see THAT evidence... the beginning part.

As other posters have expressed, it has very little to do with Mary's sex life.

Of course.... but the reality is... what makes one a virgin? NOT HAVING SEX (or for that matter NOT DOING a number of other things, never buying a house, you would be a house buying virgin etc.)

It has to do with Mary setting herself apart for the Lord for an expressed purpose.

OK! Totally digging it. Prove it.

The vow of chastity just happened to be a part of it.

And yet you cannot prove that she made a vow.

It could have been a vow of not eating matzo for all I care (even though that is nonsensical). The content of the vow is not as important as the reasoning behind it.

The reasoning is very important... doesn't make it true.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In brief, this doctrine “the Virginal Birth” in fact is the outward sign of the mystery of Incarnation.

1 This thread is not about the birth of Jesus or whether Mary was a virgin at that point. I'm not sure such is permissible in this thread since it's not the topic.


2. This thread is about the confirmation that Mary made a specific VOW to God and for the precise CONTENT thereof, and as extension, that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The DOGMA is called "the EVER Virginity of Mary" or "The PERPETUAL virginity of Mary." It's whether She DIED (or didn't die) as a virgin - not whether She was a virgin at the Incarnation or Nativity. Let's try to stay to topic.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[washedagain]

The Scriptures never state that they married.

The translation of Scripture that you are using is not accurate. The translation has twisted what the Scripture actually says !!

The state of betrothal was a contractual state, yes.

You are welcome to think what you might think beyond that.

(And, in John, the pharisees' suggestive taunt re: the parentage of Christ, "we know who our father is" is recorded.)

OK.... lets go with your translation. Joseph never married Mary. That would make JEsus as bastard with His contemporaries and Mary a harlot by her contemporaries. Their contemporaries knew the difference between being betrothed and being married... a woman that was betrothed and not yet married and had a child would be looked upon as breaking the law and a harlot. Women were to stay a virgin while betrothed.

So you tell me... how did that work for Jesus and Mary?

Did Mary and Joseph lie to everyone and say they were Married but really they were only betrothed?

Your rendering of Scripture creates a whole bunch of problems.

My bible tells me that Joseph did as the angel said and took her as his wife.

That makes Jesus legit in His society and Mary pure in her society. Remember, Everyone thought Jesus was Josephs son... know one knew that Mary was a pregnant virgin.

 

[Thekla]

OK.... lets go with your translation. Joseph never married Mary. That would make JEsus as bastard with His contemporaries and Mary a harlot by her contemporaries. Their contemporaries knew the difference between being betrothed and being married... a woman that was betrothed and not yet married and had a child would be looked upon as breaking the law and a harlot. Women were to stay a virgin while betrothed.

So you tell me... how did that work for Jesus and Mary?

Did Mary and Joseph lie to everyone and say they were Married but really they were only betrothed?

Your rendering of Scripture creates a whole bunch of problems.

My bible tells me that Joseph did as the angel said and took her as his wife.

That makes Jesus legit in His society and Mary pure in her society. Remember, Everyone thought Jesus was Josephs son... know one knew that Mary was a pregnant virgin.

Don't you care about what Scripture says ?

Your translation has changed Scripture -- Luke says ministeuw. Your translation says gamew.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]). St. Athanasios

Yes. Probably the first time it can be confirmed that any one believed this. From about 300 years after Mary and Joseph died (the only two who possibility could have known if Mary died or didn't die a virgin). And he offers NOTHING - absolutely nothing - to indicate that it's true thus it's not confirmation of the fact, it's irrelevant to the issue of it being true, it simply indicates that in 360, we now know of one person who believed this - with ZERO indication of why he did, how he knew this tidbit of bedroom data, or if he considered it dogma or a matter of highest importance for all and greatest certainty of truth.

If you found one person, who in 1877 wrote that it was his belief it was actually Jesus who nailed the 95 Thesis to the door rather than Luther, would that indicate to you that ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that ergo Jesus nailed the 95 Thesis to the door? I'm just trying to figure out whether you accept your own argument, your own apologetic.







.

 

[Philothei]

So you do not accept the protoevangellion since it is not scripture...Hmmm ... interesting that you agree with the Fathers on this but not in others.

 

[mrmccormo]

I think God is quite apt to protect His word... he used men to do it but all the glory goes to God, not man. I never said anything about the value of the body of Christ. Not sure why you are posting this.

Indeed, God is very able to protect His truth, which is why I put great stock into the confessed faith of those in the early church. They suffered, they died, they preserved the Bible, and they also believed Mary remained a virgin based on the traditions they had been given. I'm compelled to think that as God protected His truth of the Word through these people (the glory belongs to God), then He also protected other truths through these same people (again, the glory belongs to God.

Again, never said otherwise. I affirmed that early writers (if you can call early 400 years later) speak of Mary's perpetual virginity. I never once said they were silent. I said the earliest (that would be 1st century) are silent on the subject.

The earliest writers are silent on most subjects. You cannot argue for or against a topic out of silence.

I know that is what you believe... I am simply asking you to show me your evidence from the beginning. It has been said over and over and over again on this thread that it has ALWAYS BEEN BELIEVED FROM THE BEGINNING. I would like to see THAT evidence... the beginning part.

Mary remained a virgin, and her perpetual virginity was preached along with the Gospel by the Apostles. As the Apostles died, their successors also preached the perpetual virginity of Mary. Once they died, their successors also preached the perpetual virginity of Mary. So on and so forth. Once the historical climate changed and the church was actually able to commit more of its doctrines to the pen without fear of being executed, these doctrines which had been faithfully handed down from generation to generation were recorded in writing.

We've given a lot of evidence, but a big one (for me) is that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was preserved from Rome to Jerusalem, for hundreds of years, despite heresies, despite persecutions, despite isolation, despite distance. That is compelling evidence to me. If the perpetual virginity of Mary was a false doctrine, then it would have originated from one place and then fizzled and died in other places. It would not be found everywhere in Christianity. The only reasonable explanation for why this doctrine is found everywhere in the early church is that this doctrine was taught from the beginning alongside the Gospel. Otherwise, heresies, isolation, and the march of time would have eliminated the doctrine from some of the regions of Christianity.

Of course.... but the reality is... what makes one a virgin? NOT HAVING SEX (or for that matter NOT DOING a number of other things, never buying a house, you would be a house buying virgin etc.)

I'm pointing out that some people are making this issue just about sex. But this issue isn't just about sex. For example, if Mary had remained a virgin due to some sort of medical issue, that wouldn't really be anything special, now would it? However, here we have a doctrine that Mary remained a virgin to preserve the sanctity of her womb and to honor the Lord.

You have your "cause and effect" backward here. You think we are saying "Mary remained a virgin, therefore she is special" What we are actually saying is "Mary made a vow to the Lord, therefore she remained a virgin".

OK! Totally digging it. Prove it.

And yet you cannot prove that she made a vow.

The reasoning is very important... doesn't make it true.

What method or criteria would you like me to use that would satisfy your request of "prove it"? You are not the first here to ask that. We have offered evidence. To us, this evidence is proof, but to you, it is not proof enough. What evidence is lacking that you need us to provide so that the issue can be "proven"?

 

[washedagain]

Don't you care about what Scripture says ?

Your translation has changed Scripture -- Luke says ministeuw. Your translation says gamew.

Of course I care what scriptures says... and I read nothing about Joseph never marrying Mary and all that would come of that scenario... what I do read is that Joseph was obedient to what the angel said. Jesus was legit as their contemporaries refer to Joseph as Jesus' father and Mary is not looked upon as a harlot.

Your version must have all that. Mine doesn't.

 

[mrmccormo]

If you found one person, who in 1877 wrote that it was his belief it was actually Jesus who nailed the 95 Thesis to the door rather than Luther, would that indicate to you that ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that ergo Jesus nailed the 95 Thesis to the door? I'm just trying to figure out whether you accept your own argument, your own apologetic.
.

Strawmen arguments, once again. Not a single person here is hinging their belief of this doctrine on "one person". Rather we hinge our faith regarding this issue on

- the Holy Traditions
- the writings of the church fathers
- the practice of the church
- the universality of this doctrine
- the dogged persistance and survival of this doctrine
- the various ecumenical (and other) councils of the church
- the interpretation of Scripture

To say that we base this entire doctrine simply on what one obscure person said is a dishonest - whether willful or not - look at the situation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

First of all, Mary's vow belongs to a private tradition of Marian devotion.

In other words, you have NOTHING to indicate it's true?

Does truth just not matter? Or only vis-a-vis Mary? Or in matters of Dogma - a matter of greatest certainty of Truth?


If a Calvinist posted that "Once Saved, Always Saved" is true because those that believe it, believe it, would your reponse be, "Ergo, it is a matter of dogmatic fact and highest importance of truth and greatest certainty of Truth?"

The point is that the PVof Mary has always been a universal traditional belief

Okay. If that's your apologetic, then indicate that the basis of it is true. Please quote from at least 5 persons living in the First Century who stated that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Otherwise, your statement is false and is to be disregarded in reference to this topic.

The truth is you have appointed yourself to be the Magisterium of the Church to judge for youself what is the divine truth by privately interpreting the scriptures according to your sensibilities.

No, that's what your denomination did. I have no position.


I'm not saying how often ANY couple has had sex during their entirely lifetime - as a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth. Not you and your spouse, not your mother and father, not Mary and Joseph. YOU are the one who is. Does it matter to you if it's true? If it really is a matter of highest importance for all to believe, confess and teach? If it is a matter of greatest certainty of Truth?

"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church... those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth."

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 26:2 (A.D. 180)

Let's assume that Mary came back to Earth and had a little chat with St. Irenaeus, telling him this tidbid of info concerning her sex life. Note that he said NOTHING about it - perhaps respecting Her privacy, the institution of marriage or perhaps as seeing it as not a supreme matter of public information? I don't know, all I do know is the quote you gave says NOTHING about Mary Had No Sex EVER.








.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Strawmen arguments, once again. Not a single person here is hinging their belief of this doctrine on "one person". Rather we hinge our faith regarding this issue on

- the Holy Traditions
- the writings of the church fathers
- the practice of the church
- the universality of this doctrine
- the dogged persistance and survival of this doctrine
- the various ecumenical (and other) councils of the church
- the interpretation of Scripture

To say that we base this entire doctrine simply on what one obscure person said is a dishonest - whether willful or not - look at the situation.

7 x 0 = 0.






.

 

[Thekla]

Of course I care what scriptures says... and I read nothing about Joseph never marrying Mary and all that would come of that scenario... what I do read is that Joseph was obedient to what the angel said. Jesus was legit as their contemporaries refer to Joseph as Jesus' father and Mary is not looked upon as a harlot.

Your version must have all that. Mine doesn't.

Please see what I posted re: the Gospel of John. The pharisees do tacitly state that Jesus is illegitimate ("we know who our father is...").

What Celsus (3rd. c.) claims to have heard from the Jews is recorded:
" ... born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery..." Origen: Contra Celsus, Book 1 (Roberts-Donaldson)


The Scriptures never state that Mary and Joseph were married.

We do know that (based only on what the Scriptures do say) they were engaged, and that by the time they left for Bethlehem, they were still only betrothed.

It cannot have been easy for Mary and Joseph; we do know that Joseph protected her. Were it not for his good character (recall, he could have accused her of adultery, but instead wanted to put her away quietly), indeed it would have been far worse. This is imo evidence that the selection of Joseph indicates God's involvement.

 

[mrmccormo]

7 x 0 = 0.

.

My post was a refutation of your claim, which implied that this entire argument was hinged on just one person (or just a few persons). But par for the course, you dodge once again CalifornianJosiah.

Fortunately for us, you do not determine what "0" is.

Fortunately for us, God made it clear that His church is quite capable of preserving truth, whether it is the written words of Scripture or Tradition. To say otherwise is a contradiction of the Christian faith.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Scriptures never state that Mary and Joseph were married.

... here's MORE of your fundamental argument: "It's INDEFINITE!" What I don't follow is how your continous pointing out how INDEFINITE things are proves to the highest level possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Fortunately for us, God made it clear that His church is quite capable of preserving truth, .

1. Is that a way to say, "My denomination is exempt from the issue of truth?"

2. I'd like to see the quote from God on that point. Where did God say that any denomination (mine, yours, the RCC or LDS or any other) is incapable of error, exempt from the issue of truth, and whatever IT exclusively says is what He says? Don't quote the RC Catechism or LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, you said GOD "made it CLEAR." Let's see the quote. Otherwise, it's irrelevant and evasive to the whole issue of this thread.






.

 

[washedagain]

=mrmccormo;58330941]Indeed, God is very able to protect His truth, which is why I put great stock into the confessed faith of those in the early church. They suffered, they died, they preserved the Bible, and they also believed Mary remained a virgin based on the traditions they had been given. I'm compelled to think that as God protected His truth of the Word through these people (the glory belongs to God), then He also protected other truths through these same people (again, the glory belongs to God.

Totally agree... but you assume that because they preserved what was written (that is something tangible, that can be examined) also translates to accuracy of what is not written (something completely UN-tangable, that cannot be examined). I don't.

The earliest writers are silent on most subjects. You cannot argue for or against a topic out of silence.

That is correct and yet you do! Can you NOT see that? You are arguing from silence.... saying that it is true without any evidence (complete silence) in the first century.

Mary remained a virgin, and her perpetual virginity was preached along with the Gospel by the Apostles.

Proof please. Just saying that does not make it so. Where do you find that the Apostles preached of Mary's perpetual virginity along with the Gospel? We know they preached the gospel as it is recorded... where is the evidence that they preached Mary's perpetual virginity?

As the Apostles died, their successors also preached the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Again, where is your evidence of this? We don't see second century teaching this either.

Once they died, their successors also preached the perpetual virginity of Mary. So on and so forth.

But yet, you cannot demonstrate that this happened. You saying it is the way it went is not evidence.

Once the historical climate changed and the church was actually able to commit more of its doctrines to the pen without fear of being executed, these doctrines which had been faithfully handed down from generation to generation were recorded in writing.

Again, total assumption on your part that they were faithfully handed down. You have no evidence that they were. Just you believing that they were.

We've given a lot of evidence, but a big one (for me) is that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was preserved from Rome to Jerusalem, for hundreds of years, despite heresies, despite persecutions, despite isolation, despite distance. That is compelling evidence to me.

But you don't know if this teaching was from the beginning so there is no compelling evidence that it sustained and was preserved from Rome to Jerusalem, for hundreds of years, despite heresies, despite persecutions, despite isolation, despite distance. there is nothing compelling about it as it simply pops up in the 4th century. You have no foundation that it was believed from the beginning. nothing. You need to be intelectually honest about it. You are free to believe it is from the beginning... knock yourself out... but you cannot intellectually say it is from the beginning without verifying proof.

If the perpetual virginity of Mary was a false doctrine, then it would have originated from one place and then fizzled and died in other places.

How do you figure... Hinduism has many false teachings... yet it has not fizzled out and it is way older than the Doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

It would not be found everywhere in Christianity.

It isn't found everywhere in Christianity... it is found no where for 4 centuries.

The only reasonable explanation for why this doctrine is found everywhere in the early church is that this doctrine was taught from the beginning alongside the Gospel.

Already refuted.

Otherwise, heresies, isolation, and the march of time would have eliminated the doctrine from some of the regions of Christianity.

Already refuted

I'm pointing out that some people are making this issue just about sex. But this issue isn't just about sex.

The issue at hand is her vow to remain a virgin... to not have sex with a man.

For example, if Mary had remained a virgin due to some sort of medical issue, that wouldn't really be anything special, now would it?

Nope.

However, here we have a doctrine that Mary remained a virgin to preserve the sanctity of her womb and to honor the Lord.

Yes, you have this doctrine. But there is nothing in scripture that her womb needed preservation or sanctity after Jesus' birth to honor the Lord.

You have your "cause and effect" backward here. You think we are saying "Mary remained a virgin, therefore she is special" What we are actually saying is "Mary made a vow to the Lord, therefore she remained a virgin".

I never said that is what you are saying. Not sure why you posted that.


What method or criteria would you like me to use that would satisfy your request of "prove it"? You are not the first here to ask that. We have offered evidence. To us, this evidence is proof, but to you, it is not proof enough. What evidence is lacking that you need us to provide so that the issue can be "proven"?[/quote]

Evidence that this was from the beginning like it has been touted as the very word of God.

 

[Philothei]

What gain the Church has fromt he EV of Mray CJ?

 

[washedagain]

Please see what I posted re: the Gospel of John. The pharisees do tacitly state that Jesus is illegitimate ("we know who our father is...").

What Celsus (3rd. c.) claims to have heard from the Jews is recorded:
" ... born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery..." Origen: Contra Celsus, Book 1 (Roberts-Donaldson)


The Scriptures never state that Mary and Joseph were married.

We do know that (based only on what the Scriptures do say) they were engaged, and that by the time they left for Bethlehem, they were still only betrothed.

It cannot have been easy for Mary and Joseph; we do know that Joseph protected her. Were it not for his good character (recall, he could have accused her of adultery, but instead wanted to put her away quietly), indeed it would have been far worse. This is imo evidence that the selection of Joseph indicates God's involvement.

Please quote the scripture that you are addressing from John. Thanks.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What gain the Church has fromt he EV of Mray CJ?

No idea.

What gain has the LDS gained from Joseph Smith finding those plates? Does the question confirm, to the highest level possible, that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that he did? How often have my parents had sex? Does that question confirm, to the highest level, that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that they will, upon my mother's death (or undeath) have had sex exactly 675 times? I'm not following you....




.