Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

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

It's a tacit slam (where is your father) in John 8:19.

 

[mrmccormo]

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

You don't even know what my denomination is.

But I will say this: my "denomination" is certainly exempt from your personal definition of truth, as is your own.

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.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 4, reinforces the idea that it is not simply which Gospel is preached but who is preaching it. This is very important to note: Paul does not tell his churches to use logic (not that logic is bad) or to take a vote (not that votes are bad) or even to search through the Scripture and find the correct interpretation. Paul is a dictator: the Gospel and traditions we gave you are the right ones, no questions asked.

Paul's letter to Timothy confirms this. Paul wants to go visit, but just in case he cannot come (and speak face-to-face about how Christians are to behave), Paul confirms that the Church has the authority, since it is the pillar and buttress of truth. In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul once again stresses the importance of who is delivering the Gospel, because there are false teachers and false Gospels being preached. In Romans 2:16 and in 2 Timothy 2:8, Paul goes as far to call the message of Jesus Christ "my Gospel" to make it clear that who preaches the Gospel is quite important. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is the final icing on the cake: we are supposed to hold fast to the traditions (both which was written and which was spoken) given by the apostles. He doesn't say "Gospel" or "Scripture". He says "traditions".

This established how the early church was to operate in regards to doctrines. Clearly, it was never expressed that a church should "just go look it up in the Bible". Rather, churches were supposed to cling to the teachings they had been given directly by the Apostles (as a sure-fire way of helping to mitigate the rampant heresy in the early church). Of course, I am not discounting Scripture. I am simply saying that the Church's role was to be the haven of truth. If you wanted the truth of the Gospel, you look to the Church.

So, knowing this is how God intended His truth to be preserved, and also trusting that the same Holy Spirit who lives in us also lived in them, we have a degree of faith that the doctrines and traditions of the early church did not materialize out of thin air, nor did they develop in a few isolated pockets of Christianity. These doctrines - which were accepted everywhere as Apostolic traditions - were faithfully handed down and preserved, which is the job of the church anyway.

If the early church so utterly failed to hand down the proper traditions from the time of the Apostles to the 4th century and allowed "false doctrines" like the perpetual virginity of Mary to creep into the church, then not only was God's design for the Church ineffective, not only was Christ's promise to "be with us" a lie, not only was the Holy Spirit unable to "lead us [including The Church] in all truth" a joke, not only was Paul's declaration that Christ's body is not divided false, but it also means that these same people were utterly unqualified to judge what the correct canon of Scripture should be.

Throw out your Bible. For all you know, the Gospels of Thomas and Judas are the right ones.

 

[washedagain]

It's a tacit slam (where is your father) in John 8:19.

Context is a beautiful thing.... they were not slamming him because they knew he was illegitimate... good gravy.....

14Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I come, or whither I go. 15You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.
16And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true.
18I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony of me.
19They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.


They don't say WHO is your father but WHERE is he.... being that Jesus refers to Him over and over again, they want to see Him, interrogate him? (of course they did not know he was speaking of God)


This scripture speaks of nothing about them thinking he was illegitimate.

 

[Dorothea]

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



.

Actually it is about that because Mary's virginity is tied into Christ's Incarnation.

 

[Dorothea]

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.

I would say James' Protoevangelium is pretty important since he was actually around and with Mary and Joseph at that time. At least that's my understanding. Was James not one of Joseph's sons?

 

[mrmccormo]

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.

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.

Traditions certainly aren't silent. A lack of a written document is not "silence". I was simply pointing out that to say "the earliest Christians were silent on the matter" is not a strong point in this argument.

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?

I offered you proof, and you rejected it by saying "already refuted". Just saying that does not make it so. The tangible fact that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary existed through all of the churches in early Christianity is evidence that it was taught since the beginning. If it was an isolated doctrine, it would have sprung up, spread to neighboring churches, and fizzled out in other churched. That is what is commonly known as "evidence". You may not accept the evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

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

Like CalifornianJosiah, you have been suspiciously vague as to what 'evidence' means to you. The evidence is that there is an unbroken apostolic succession from the Apostles all throughout the early church. For a successor to be approved, it was expected that they held to the teachings of the apostles to ensure that correct teaching was protected.

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

See above. Apostolic succession and oral tradition were brutally effective in preserving the truth in the early church. If you want "proof" to confirm this, then you can thank Apostolic succession and oral tradition for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Bible, the refutation of the gnostic doctrines, the refutation of having to follow Jewish ceremonial laws, and much more.

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.

Indeed, I make a total assumption, just like I make a total assumption that this same group of people also knew the correct canon of the Bible.

So you tell me: are you also willing to doubt the Bible you have on your shelf? Who knows? Maybe the Gospels of Judas and Thomas are the correct ones...

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.

If it just "popped up" in the 4th century, then we would have a very clear point of origin. We would be able to say that it started (for instance) in Jerusalem, spread to Greece, and then spread to Rome and we would be able to historically pinpoint where it "popped up". Any sociologist or historian would tell you that beliefs - especially religious ones - never, ever, ever just "pop up" on such a grand scale.

Again, you make the mistake of assuming that just because most of our first written documents on the topic appear in the 4th century, that is when it "popped up".

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.

Proof has been given, but you don't like my proof. You have yet to explain what sort of "proof" would satisfy you.

But yes, I can say that it is from the beginning. If I have faith that the Bible on my shelf has the correct Word of God, then it is not a big leap to also have faith in the teachings that were believed during the time of the Bible's formation. If anything, it is intellectually dishonest to believe that your Bible is valid but at the same time discredit the doctrines that were around at the time without offering further explanations.

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.

Hinduism is internally consistent. You don't have Hindus in India declaring that Vishna was a goat whereas Hindus in Puerto Rico declaring that Vishna was a '69 Ford Mustang. Internal consistency is something that historians often look for when tracking the growth and progression of a religious movement. The fact that the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity can be found across all of Christianity in the 4th century means that it simply could not have "popped up" in the 4th century. Possibly, the doctrine could have "popped up" in the 2nd or 3rd century, but at the very least, it is an impossibility that this doctrine "popped up" during the 4th century. Now, you'd have to prove that it "popped up" in the 2nd or 3rd century, now wouldn't you? You'd have to show a point of origin, the spread of the doctrine, the dismissal of the doctrine in some parts, etc. Since you cannot do that, you cannot make the argument that it simply "popped up". Any historian would be laughing you back to grade school if you tried to make this argument on any other topic.

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

Where is your proof? You are telling me that no Christians believed this for 400 years? Gee, for someone so obsessed with "proof", you sure do like to abandon your methods when it is convenient for you.

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.

One such example (there are many) is the passage in Ezekiel 46 where the gate of the inner court is shut, only the prince may enter through it, and once he enters through it, the gate will remain shut and no one will enter it. This is viewed as a prophecy that Mary would remain a virgin. Others here will be able to give a better explanation as to why her womb needed preservation or sanctity.

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

Yes, that's what I'm asking: what evidence would you like me to use? What would satisfy you? You are being vague - either on purpose or unintentionally. If you are interested in proof, then certainly "proof" has a certain definition to you, does it not?

 

[Dorothea]

yes, well, CJ and washedagain sound very similar...

 

[justinangel]

.

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?

We have Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. These two mediums of divine revelation form the deposit of faith from the beginning.

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?"

It can't be true, because this is a novel Protestant doctrine that cannot be traced back to the teachings and writings of the apostles. In fact, most Protestants don't accept it. I'm debating this issue on another thread with Calvinists, and ironically I'm on the same side with Protestants for a pleasant change. Chalk one up for the ecumenical movement!

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.

I never met anyone in the first century. I wasn't born yet.

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

Denominations appeared in the 16th century outside the Church.

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?

That would depend on who the mother gave birth to and through whom.

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.

The quote I gave was from one who had apostolic authority to teach and "heard" the truth from someone who knew the apostle John. How much closer can we get to apostolic time than that?

PAX









.

 

[Thekla]

Context is a beautiful thing.... they were not slamming him because they knew he was illegitimate... good gravy.....

14Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I come, or whither I go. 15You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man.
16And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true.
18I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony of me.
19They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.


They don't say WHO is your father but WHERE is he.... being that Jesus refers to Him over and over again, they want to see Him, interrogate him? (of course they did not know he was speaking of God)


This scripture speaks of nothing about them thinking he was illegitimate.

I agree, context is important.

And I agree, this is on one level as you say.

But there are other layers, and historical reference does attest that among some Jews as detractors was the belief that Mary was indeed an adulterer (see the quote reported from Celsus that I provided).

The legitimacy of the one Christ refers to as "witness" (here father, Christ meaning God) is important. The response is to deny that the father of Christ is God, and note that Christ's actual parentage is in question.
(Of course people at that time could count months !)

 

[washedagain]

Yes, that's what I'm asking: what evidence would you like me to use? What would satisfy you? You are being vague - either on purpose or unintentionally. If you are interested in proof, then certainly "proof" has a certain definition to you, does it not?

You do know what evidence is don't you? If you went into a court of law and said, It was taught from the beginning of 33 AD that Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity. what would the court say? They would ask for evidence that demands a verdict. The only thing that would suffice would be authenticated written evidence of such a teaching from that era.. the first century... what other kind of evidence could there be? NOTHING. hearsay from the 4th century about a belief is not indicative of first century teachings.

I thought this was obvious.

 

[washedagain]

I agree, context is important.

And I agree, this is on one level as you say.

But there are other layers, and historical reference does attest that among some Jews as detractors was the belief that Mary was indeed an adulterer (see the quote reported from Celsus that I provided).

The legitimacy of the one Christ refers to as "witness" (here father, Christ meaning God) is important. The response is to deny that the father of Christ is God, and note that Christ's actual parentage is in question.
(Of course people at that time could count months !)

The scripture you presented says nothing of people thinking Jesus was illegitimate.

Back to the thread.

 

[Thekla]

You do know what evidence is don't you? If you went into a court of law and said, It was taught from the beginning of 33 AD that Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity. what would the court say? They would ask for evidence that demands a verdict. The only thing that would suffice would be authenticated written evidence of such a teaching from that era.. the first century... what other kind of evidence could there be? NOTHING. hearsay from the 4th century about a belief is not indicative of first century teachings.

I thought this was obvious.

Where is the same standard of proof for the apostolic authenticity of the New Testament ?

Or the Resurrection, for that matter ?
Just because it is claimed that there were witnesses ?
There are no original texts of the New Testament in existence.

 

[washedagain]

=Thekla;58332049]Where is the same standard of proof for the apostolic authenticity of the New Testament ?

Actual text from the apostles themselves? consistancy, continuity, fulfilled prophecy, archeology, accurate history.

Or the Resurrection, for that matter ?

Actual text from the apostles themselves?

Just because it is claimed that there were witnesses ?

And yet we have something tangible to examine.

There are no original texts of the New Testament in existence.

But there were as they have been copied. You can't make a copy of something that does not exist.

This thread is not about the witness of Scripture. If you would like to discuss that, please start a new thread. I will not answer anymore questions about another subject in this thread that is about Mary and her virginity and a vow.

Now, you asked what would be evidence and I gave it to you. Care to answer? It is OK to say you don't have any evidence it is simply your belief.

I totally accept that. But I don't hold that what you believe is truth.

 

[washedagain]

Where is the same standard of proof for the apostolic authenticity of the New Testament ?

Or the Resurrection, for that matter ?
Just because it is claimed that there were witnesses ?
There are no original texts of the New Testament in existence.

Start a new thread.

 

[mrmccormo]

You do know what evidence is don't you? If you went into a court of law and said, It was taught from the beginning of 33 AD that Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity. what would the court say? They would ask for evidence that demands a verdict. The only thing that would suffice would be authenticated written evidence of such a teaching from that era.. the first century... what other kind of evidence could there be? NOTHING. hearsay from the 4th century about a belief is not indicative of first century teachings.

I thought this was obvious.

No, this is incorrect. Witness accounts are also accepted.

Besides, this is not a courtroom. The scope of history is not determined by written documentation alone. Our first copies of the works of Plato come from after 1000 AD, yet historians still accept them as accurate. As I mentioned before, if you were to use this logic with a historian, they would laugh at you.

So, yet again, I ask what sort of evidence you are asking for? We have alread established that a lack of a written document does not mean a lack of a belief.

 

[mrmccormo]

But there were as they have been copied. You can't make a copy of something that does not exist.

Yet, why do you not apply this standard to tradition? You can't pass down a tradition that doesn't exist, true?

You ignored the bulk of my prior post, showing that you aren't truly interested in engaging in debate. A sockpuppet of CalifornianJosiah?

 

[washedagain]

=mrmccormo;58332109]No, this is incorrect. Witness accounts are also accepted.

Lol.... got any witnesses in your back pocket?

 

[washedagain]

=mrmccormo;58332119]Yet, why do you not apply this standard to tradition? You can't pass down a tradition that doesn't exist, true?

Absolutely true! Never said otherwise. What needs to be established is WHEN the tradition STARTED!

You ignored the bulk of my prior post, showing that you aren't truly interested in engaging in debate. A sockpuppet of CalifornianJosiah?

Nice. Getting a little frustrated I see and charity starts to go out the window.

Nice.

 

[mrmccormo]

Lol.... got any witnesses in your back pocket?

"Lol"?

Uh, I have the witness of the early church. But you're dodging the bulk of the conversation. Why? Why would you rather "lol" instead of engaging in an actual discussion of what is being presented? Why would you rather demand "stay on topic" instead of presenting your own "proof" and "evidence" that Mary did not remain a virgin?

Absolutely true! Never said otherwise. What needs to be established is WHEN the tradition STARTED!

The tradition was passed down from the apostles. However, I cannot offer you a written document, so perhaps this doctrine is beyond the scope of what your faith allows you to believe.

Nice. Getting a little frustrated I see and charity starts to go out the window.

Nice.

Please forgive me for being uncharitable. I'm frustrated because you ignore massive chunks of information and text that the posters here are taking their time to write to answer YOUR questions.

I apologize for being uncharitable. Can you try to understand why I might be acting that way?

 

[washedagain]

=mrmccormo;58332191]"Lol"?

Yes, it struck my funny bone.

Uh, I have the witness of the early church.

You have the witness of the 4th century church, earliest no.

But you're dodging the bulk of the conversation. Why? Why would you rather "lol" instead of engaging in an actual discussion of what is being presented?

Because I cared not to reiterate what I have previously said. Also, I am busy and wanted to just address what I found amuzing. Sorry.

Why would you rather demand "stay on topic" instead of presenting your own "proof" and "evidence" that Mary did not remain a virgin?

I have never stated Mary did not remain a virgin, so I don't have to present any evidence of something I have never claimed. That is not what this thread is about.

The tradition was passed down from the apostles.

It amazes me that you can state such a thing as fact. Would it not be better to simply say, "I believe that tradition was passed down from the apostles instead of framing your sentences as fact? This is something Darwinists do.

However, I cannot offer you a written document, so perhaps this doctrine is beyond the scope of what your faith allows you to believe.

Eggggzackly. No biggy. My issue is statements presented as facts when there is nothing to substantiate fact.

Please forgive me for being uncharitable. I'm frustrated because you ignore massive chunks of information and text that the posters here are taking their time to write to answer YOUR questions.

I think I have been rather consistant to go line by line of what others have written me and quote individual in context and respond as I am doing now. I don't do that one time and I am accused of doing this as a habit. sorry and I forgive you.

I apologize for being uncharitable. Can you try to understand why I might be acting that way?

I am trying to understand why you are acting the way you are but I simply don't see the issue. I have been rather consistent with answering posts in this manner as I am doing now.