Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[mrmccormo]

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

I'm sorry, but I've been over this: I have the witness of tradition, which naturally predates the 4th century. You have been unable to comment on what I said about "universally accepted tradition" and what conclusions a historian would come to upon seeing universally accepted tradition. I pointed out that this tradition did not "pop up" in the 4th century as you claimed, yet you had nothing further to say on the matter. Why the dodge? Are you willing to admit that this doctrine did not "pop up" in the 4th century, meaning that it came from an earlier time period?

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.

I'm sorry, what I should have said is what proof do you have that Mary did not take a vow. We have been presenting evidence that supports the notion that she took a vow. Where is your evidence that she did not?

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.

Are you offended that I use the word "fact"? Here, I'll make it easy: the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is true. Perhaps I cannot validate my faith (who says that's a requirement anyway? Certainly not God...) with documentation and therefore I cannot call my faith a fact in the strict scientific definition of the word, but the doctrine is true.

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

Well, the evidence is a "fact". What the early church fathers from the 4th century said is a "fact" as much as anything historical can be "fact". What the early church councils declared is a "fact". What I'm saying is that it is factual that these things were declared and written as a point of history. You seem more upset that I am using the word "fact" than anything else. We do indeed have many, many facts to support this doctrine. Now, I am happy to admit that supporting facts do not create a fact, but let us least admit that all along, we've been presenting facts in this discussion. If you want to debate the definition of "fact" that is perhaps for another thread.

But we have offered historical, factual evidences to support our argument.

That is a fact.

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.

You ignored my post (#606) on page 61. You only replied to the very, very last paragraph. I understand that we all have limited time, but it is not helpful to ignore large parts of a person's post and then continue to use the same points after they have been challenged.

 

[Philothei]

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....




.

Me neither as that is not what I asked you. I asked what gain the church would have to misslead its people? The LDS and the rest are obvious answers... The EV is NOT and by asking another question is not a way to asnwer it. At least that is not how scholars or researchers would answer ...I think

 

[Thekla]

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

Back to the thread.

They are questioning the legitimacy of Christ's father as a viable "witness", by asking Him to produce His witness.

As (per anyone's count), the birth of Christ demonstrates conception during a period of betrothal, the question of Christ's parentage and the veracity (truthfulness) and honor of His adoptive father is in question.

 

[Thekla]

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

Your standard is a court of Law.
Prove that the Scriptures are in accord with the supposed originals, or that originals exist.

And yet we have something tangible to examine.


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

It is claimed they were copied.

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.

Your standard for the ever-Virginity exceeds the standard for the apostolic authenticity of the Scriptures.

Why ?

 

[justinangel]

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.

Hearsay from the 4th century? The Church was born on Pentecost. Is the doctrine of the two distinct wills (divine/human and not in opposition to each other) of Christ also hearsay? I don't believe there is any 1st century written document on this subject to provide any evidence of the truth.

PAX

 

[washedagain]

=mrmccormo;58332765]I'm sorry, but I've been over this: I have the witness of tradition, which naturally predates the 4th century. You have been unable to comment on what I said about "universally accepted tradition" and what conclusions a historian would come to upon seeing universally accepted tradition.

I have been unable to comment???????? maybe I thought it was not worth commenting on or found it not to be significant to the purpose of this thread. You cannot demonstrate that a tradition was in formation prior to the 4th century simply because someone wrote that they believe Mary was a perpetual virgin. That is not evidence of a tradition... that is evidence of a man who believes Mary was a perpetual virgin. "what is universally accepted traditions".... some sect that believes they are traditions? So? What is it you want me to comment on?

I pointed out that this tradition did not "pop up" in the 4th century as you claimed, yet you had nothing further to say on the matter. Why the dodge?

What dodge. You say it didn't pop up in the forth century. OK. Prove that it was believed before then. The problem is you can't.
(by the way, I never said it popped up in the 4th century, quote me)

Are you willing to admit that this doctrine did not "pop up" in the 4th century, meaning that it came from an earlier time period?

I am sorry, you need to quote me where I said it "popped up" in the 4th century. I am unwilling to say any such thing as I have not been provided evidence that it was a tradition before that time period.

I'm sorry, what I should have said is what proof do you have that Mary did not take a vow.

I don't. Never said I did. I have nothing to prove. I am examining your churches teachings.

We have been presenting evidence that supports the notion that she took a vow.

This is what I have thus far received...

a verse in scripture that says nothing of a vow nor talks of her future sexual performances.

4th century writings of the beliefs of the authors.

I have been told it is fact and that it was taught and believed from the very beginning (that would be 1st century, 33 AD) without any substantiation.

If you wanna call that evidence... OK. I find it flimsy and so do lots of other people.

Where is your evidence that she did not?

I never said she didn't. Why are you asking me this if I never said she didn't? how can I defend something I never said?

Are you offended that I use the word "fact"?

How can I be offended when you didn't use the word "fact"?

Here, I'll make it easy: the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is true.

To you... you have yet to demonstrate it is fact. It is your belief, not fact. If it were a fact, you would be able to produce evidence that it was taught from the beginning. (33AD and beyond)

Perhaps I cannot validate my faith (who says that's a requirement anyway? Certainly not God...)

You are absolutely right.

with documentation and therefore I cannot call my faith a fact in the strict scientific definition of the word, but the doctrine is true.

To you. Not fact. Something that is true is FACT. You have yet to show it is a fact... just that it is your belief.

Well, the evidence is a "fact".

The evidence is just that, evidence. It does not prove as a fact that Mary was a perpetual virgin or that she took a vow or that it was taught from the beginning.

What the early church fathers from the 4th century said is a "fact" as much as anything historical can be "fact".

Yes, of course. What they said is true of their faith.... kinda hard to write against ones beliefs eh? I believe them when they say they believe Mary is a perpetual virgin. That has no bearing as to the truthfulness of this belief. They simply state what they believe, not producing evidence that it is true.

What the early church councils declared is a "fact". What I'm saying is that it is factual that these things were declared and written as a point of history.

What they declared is what they believe. The mormons believe that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Morona and received tablets with the word of God on them and was given special glasses to read them. because they have written that they believe this, does it make it true???????

You seem more upset that I am using the word "fact" than anything else.

Upset????????? really

We do indeed have many, many facts to support this doctrine.

No. I have demonstrated that you have opinions... not facts.

Now, I am happy to admit that supporting facts do not create a fact, but let us least admit that all along, we've been presenting facts in this discussion.

No, you have submitted your opinion as evidence. I have yet to receive a fact of Mary being a perpetual virgin or her making a vow.

If you want to debate the definition of "fact" that is perhaps for another thread.

Agreed.

But we have offered historical, factual evidences to support our argument.

You have offered your evidence, of which none of it proves that MAry is an ever virgin. Just

That is a fact.

You ignored my post (#606) on page 61. You only replied to the very, very last paragraph.

And this is enough to irritate you out of all my posts... wow. Sorry. I will go back to it in a bit.

I understand that we all have limited time, but it is not helpful to ignore large parts of a person's post and then continue to use the same points after they have been challenged.

I will go and see what you are fuss'n bout.

 

[mrmccormo]

Some of the posters here apply such harsh requirements of proof (though they continually deny it and say "this isn't our doctrine!") on the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary that I would be terrified to apply such a standard to anything else in Christianity!

The Trinity? Axed.
Canon of Scripture? Gone.
Christ's ressurection? Hoax.
Doctrine of the Eucharist? Goodbye.
Divine nature of Christ? See ya.
Virgin birth? Sliced.
Shepherd seeing angels? Diced.
Martyrdom of the saints? Chopped.
Healings and miracles? Unproven.
John's vision on Patmos? Heresay.
Christ's ascension to heaven? Fabricated.

 

[Thekla]

Some of the posters here apply such harsh requirements of proof (though they continually deny it and say "this isn't our doctrine!") on the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary that I would be terrified to apply such a standard to anything else in Christianity!

The Trinity? Axed.
Canon of Scripture? Gone.
Christ's ressurection? Hoax.
Doctrine of the Eucharist? Goodbye.
Divine nature of Christ? See ya.
Virgin birth? Sliced.
Shepherd seeing angels? Diced.
Martyrdom of the saints? Chopped.
Healings and miracles? Unproven.
John's vision on Patmos? Heresay.
Christ's ascension to heaven? Fabricated.

Lord have mercy

 

[mrmccormo]

I have been unable to comment???????? maybe I thought it was not worth commenting on or found it not to be significant to the purpose of this thread. You cannot demonstrate that a tradition was in formation prior to the 4th century simply because someone wrote that they believe Mary was a perpetual virgin. That is not evidence of a tradition... that is evidence of a man who believes Mary was a perpetual virgin. "what is universally accepted traditions".... some sect that believes they are traditions? So? What is it you want me to comment on?

Comment on the fact that in the 4th century (since we can at least agree that our record of what happened in the 4th century is accurate) every corner of Christianity professed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Where did this unity of belief come from?

What dodge. You say it didn't pop up in the forth century. OK. Prove that it was believed before then. The problem is you can't.
(by the way, I never said it popped up in the 4th century, quote me)

Page 60: Here is your quote

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.

I proved it did not "pop up" in the 4th century on account that no belief "pops up" on such a broad scale without having a common origin. Since we cannot trace a common origin of this doctrine in the 4th century, it did not originate from the 4th century. Unless we are dealing with time travellers, logic would dictate that the doctrine originated from a time period prior to the 4th century during the mostly-unrecorded period of Church history.

I am sorry, you need to quote me where I said it "popped up" in the 4th century. I am unwilling to say any such thing as I have not been provided evidence that it was a tradition before that time period.

Already quoted. See above.

And you have continued to dodge what "evidence" means to you. Since we have already established that written documentation is not the only sufficient method of determining truth, what evidence would you prefer?

This is what I have thus far received...

a verse in scripture that says nothing of a vow nor talks of her future sexual performances.

4th century writings of the beliefs of the authors.

I have been told it is fact and that it was taught and believed from the very beginning (that would be 1st century, 33 AD) without any substantiation.

If you wanna call that evidence... OK. I find it flimsy and so do lots of other people.

Why do you willfully omit other evidence that we have shown you? What about

- unbroken apostolic succession
- universality of the doctrine
- dogged survival of the doctrine despite heresies
- documentation from early 2nd century (Protoevangelium of James)
- the testament that the early church faithfully preserved the truth in other aspects (the canon of the Bible)

All of these are facts. Why do you brush them aside? You are not applying any sort of rational thinking here.

I never said she didn't. Why are you asking me this if I never said she didn't? how can I defend something I never said?

Page 59:

And yet you cannot prove that she made a vow.

You reject our proof that she made such a vow.

To you... you have yet to demonstrate it is fact. It is your belief, not fact. If it were a fact, you would be able to produce evidence that it was taught from the beginning. (33AD and beyond)

You are absolutely right.

To you. Not fact. Something that is true is FACT. You have yet to show it is a fact... just that it is your belief.

Once again, you dance around the defintion of words instead of engaging in the conversation. What is a "fact" to you? You have already admitted that you do not necessarily have to have written documentation of something for it to be a fact. Are you willing to admit that a "fact" can exist without someone observing it? Can a tree fall in the woods without someone seeing it?

The evidence is just that, evidence. It does not prove as a fact that Mary was a perpetual virgin or that she took a vow or that it was taught from the beginning.

How does one determine a fact? They compile evidence. You may disagree with our conclusion, but you have to admit that we are following proper procedure in this method of determining whether or not it is a fact or not. Would you rather have us dig up Mary's body and medically examine her to see if she remained a virgin? Just curious why our reasonable, logical, scientific method of supporting our "fact" doesn't pass muster with you.

Yes, of course. What they said is true of their faith.... kinda hard to write against ones beliefs eh? I believe them when they say they believe Mary is a perpetual virgin. That has no bearing as to the truthfulness of this belief. They simply state what they believe, not producing evidence that it is true.

But as a Christian, if you also believe that they were competent enough to compile the Bible, then it gives credence to the other things they say.

What they declared is what they believe. The mormons believe that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Morona and received tablets with the word of God on them and was given special glasses to read them. because they have written that they believe this, does it make it true???????

You are using the same argument as CalifornianJosiah, and his argument was already disproven.

We are not saying "they said it, therefore it is true".

We are saying "it is true, and they faithfully preserved the truth".

No. I have demonstrated that you have opinions... not facts.

Historical quotes, historical dates, and physical documents are not facts? Okay, buddy. Spin, spin, spin.

No, you have submitted your opinion as evidence. I have yet to receive a fact of Mary being a perpetual virgin or her making a vow.

You have yet to determine what sort of "fact" would satisfy your curiosity.

Until then, I submit the Protoevangelium of James, along with the witness of the Church.

You have offered your evidence, of which none of it proves that MAry is an ever virgin.

And again, you have yet to determine your criteria for "proof". CalifornianJosiah already gave us this song and dance and he was unable - for dozens of pages - to give us what criteria he uses to determine "fact", "evidence", or "proof".

And again, I'll point out that submitting evidence is precisely the method one would use in an effort to determine if something is or is not a fact. Do you have a better method? Would you require us to dig up Mary's body? If our submission of evidence is not the proper way of determining a fact, please show us a better way.

 

[washedagain]

This is exausting... will do my best.

=mrmccormo;58331792]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.

And yet they are silent on the issue of something that is of highest importance that it is Dogma.

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.

Your right... I don't accept the evidence because you cannot prove that it was believed or taught prior to the 4th century.

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.

And yet, you cannot prove that such traditions where there to be protected from the beginning.

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.

I have the word of God to thank for preserving the teaching of the trinity, the scriptures testify themselves as they are written, the word of God fighting gnostic doctrines, of Jewish ceremonial laws and much more. The scriptures testify to all of that.

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.

the scriptures where already in circulation by the beginning of the first Century as the word of God.

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...

They are not because they have contradictory elements written within them that contradicts the rest of scripture. That is why they are rejected as not authoritative.

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.

Why do you keep quoting the words "popped up"? I have never said that. So I don't really see your point. The problem is, there is NO POINT of origion... lets use what you have just presented... please present the origin of the this belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Pin point to me where it originated from and please don't just say the apostles... that is just words.... evidence that the apostles taught this is what is needed.

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".

Enough with the "popped up" already. I never suggested that. I said the first evidence of such a belief is noted in the 4th century. Before that, silence.

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

Evidence that it was believed and taught in the 1st century... got any documentation of that?
It is after all your claim.

Yes, I can say that it is from the beginning

Of course you can! I can say that Jesus braided His beard and liked to have shaved ice for a snack.

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.

I find it a huge leap of faith as there were no manuscripts to put together of Mary's perpetual virginity.

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 so... the bible was comprised of manuscripts. The PV is comprised of what?

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.

You completely miss the point. Just because something is consistent doesn't make it true is the point. Again, I never said it "popped up" in the 4th century. Regardless, things do just pop up in cultures. All beliefs have a starting point of when they ""pop up" Your point is moot.

Possibly, the doctrine could have "popped up" in the 2nd or 3rd century,

Quite possibly... the problem is, we don't know do we?

but at the very least, it is an impossibility that this doctrine "popped up" during the 4th century.

No, not really. Christianity "popped up" in the first century and spread like wild fire. It is totally possible for this teaching (that was declared by the populous-es masters) came about in the 4th century.

Now, you'd have to prove that it "popped up" in the 2nd or 3rd century, now wouldn't you?

Nope.

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".

LOL.... again with the "popped up". Lets follow your lead, show me the point of origin of the PV, since you cannot do that, you cannot make an argument that it was ever believed before the 4th century.

Any historian would be laughing you back to grade school if you tried to make this argument on any other topic.

LOL

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.

Where is my proof that it isn't found for 400 years? Ummmmmm rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, there is nothing testifying to this teaching prior to that?

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.

Yes, yes... I am well aware that your church teaches that this gate is really Mary's vagina. I find it silly... but that is just me. It is a literal gate that was shut up.

Others here will be able to give a better explanation as to why her womb needed preservation or sanctity.

I am sure.

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?

Anything from the 1st century... the only tangible thing that I can think that you can give me is testimony of the 1st century Christians teaching such a teaching.

thanks Have a nice day!

 

[mrmccormo]

Pure and simple, washedagain, your insistence on a document from the 1st century is not a reasonable demand.

When you make a statement like...

there is nothing compelling about it as it simply pops up in the 4th century.

...pardon me for thinking that you claimed the doctrine simply popped up in the 4th century. Silly me. You clearly meant something else.

Based on your posts, you'd rather blatantly ignore historical facts than to engage in conversation. You'd rather flippantly apply your own opinion as to what is or is not "valid" (without any substantiation whatsoever) than to sit down and express the foundation for your skepticism.

Sorry, but nothing at this point is going to convince you of the truth of the perpetual virginity of Mary. No historical fact, no recording, not even the body of Mary herself is going to convince you.

I suppose I'll leave you with this "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe".

 

[washedagain]

Pure and simple, washedagain, your insistence on a document from the 1st century is not a reasonable demand.

When you make a statement like...



...pardon me for thinking that you claimed the doctrine simply popped up in the 4th century. Silly me. You clearly meant something else.

Based on your posts, you'd rather blatantly ignore historical facts than to engage in conversation. You'd rather flippantly apply your own opinion as to what is or is not "valid" (without any substantiation whatsoever) than to sit down and express the foundation for your skepticism.

Sorry, but nothing at this point is going to convince you of the truth of the perpetual virginity of Mary. No historical fact, no recording, not even the body of Mary herself is going to convince you.

I suppose I'll leave you with this "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe".

You got me.... I didn't realize that I had worded it that way. I was trying to convey that it popped up as in not heard of/ no teaching on it till the 4th century... not that it may not have been believed prior.

So sorry.

Nice verse to leave me with.

You are right. Nothing at this point that you have presented has addressed my request of evidence that the first century Christians believed or taught the PV. It has always been believed from the beginning has not been demonstrated. Just that some in the 4th century.

You have a super blessed day. I enjoyed our conversation!(that is a holy kiss!)

 

[katherine2001]

Washed again, if you don't trust the doctrines of the Church that canonized the Scriptures in the 4th Century, you can't trust the NT either. After all, the Church rejected many books and they used Tradition to help determine the NT canon. If their tradition is wrong, then you can't know whether the books they canonized in the 4th Century is correct. How do we know that books were rejected that shouldn't have been included. The Scriptures are a product of the Church (they canonized the OT as well as the NT, and it is different than what the Evangelical churches use), and if you do not trust the teachings of the Church, then you can't trust the NT either. The NT did not fall out of the sky on Pentecost. The Church wrote the books of the NT. Without the Church, there is no NT.

 

[washedagain]

Washed again, if you don't trust the doctrines of the Church that canonized the Scriptures in the 4th Century, you can't trust the NT either. After all, the Church rejected many books and they used Tradition to help determine the NT canon. If their tradition is wrong, then you can't know whether the books they canonized in the 4th Century is correct. How do we know that books were rejected that shouldn't have been included. The Scriptures are a product of the Church (they canonized the OT as well as the NT, and it is different than what the Evangelical churches use), and if you do not trust the teachings of the Church, then you can't trust the NT either. The NT did not fall out of the sky on Pentecost. The Church wrote the books of the NT. Without the Church, there is no NT.

Dear Kathrine, I appreciate you concern... but I must say that there were WRITINGS that were examined that put together the scriptures... not hearsay. That is the difference.

I know you cannot see that, but it is the reality of my judgement.

They were reviewing tangible evidence.... spoken word over 4 centuries is not as reliable. That is all.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, in a literate culture the written is typically understood to be superior, but that is a more recent development. The early Christians lived in a largely oral culture, and both the written and oral were maintained.

(There are interesting studies on the maintenance of oral teachings held over long periods; the Haudenosaunee Long Count iirc is one that has been studied. Some oral cultures use just "telling", some iirc have visual prompts, such as Wampum.)

 

[justinangel]

...Nothing at this point that you have presented has addressed my request of evidence that the first century Christians believed or taught the PV. It has always been believed from the beginning has not been demonstrated. Just that some in the 4th century.

One piece of 1st century written evidence we have is the Gospel of Luke which is an acknowledgement of sacred Tradition and the oral tradition. Apart from 1:34, the evangelist alludes to Mary as a type of Israel, daughter Zion, by referring to the words of the prophets and the psalms of David, for she was perceived to be the personification of Israel (the woman of promise) out of whom the Saviour came into the world. Observe the parallelism between the OT and the NT in light of the Messianic prophecies:

Shout for joy, O daughter Zion!
sing joyfully, O Israel!
Be glad and exult with all your heart,
O daughter Jerusalem!

"My soul proclaims the glory of the Lord,
my spirit exalts in God my saviour."

The Lord has removed his judgment against you,
he has turned away your enemies;

"For he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his handmaid."

The King of Israel is in your midst,
you have no further misfortune to fear.

"Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God."

On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem:
Fear not, O Zion, be not discouraged!
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a mighty saviour.

"Hail, O favored one. The Lord is with you...Behold, you will conceive and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And to him shall be given the throne of his father David."

Zephaniah 3, 14-17

From Mary's Canticle of Praise, the Magnificat (Luke 1, 46-49):


"My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.
My spirit rejoices in God my saviour."

Rejoice heartily, O daughter Zion,
shout for joy, O daughter Jerusalem!
See, your King shall come to you;
a just saviour is he,
Meek and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Zechariah, 9, 9

"For he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his handmaid."

But you, O Lord, will arise and have compassion on Zion,
for it is time to show favor to her;
the appointed time has come.
Psalm 102, 13

"Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name."

When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion,
then we thought we were dreaming.
Our mouths were filled with laughter;
our tongues sang for joy.
Then it was said among the nations,
"The Lord has done great things for them."
The Lord has done great things for us;
O, how happy we were!
Psalm 126, 1-3

When the angel Gabriel spoke to Joseph in a dream and told him to take Mary as his wife without any fear, he meant that he take her to his home as his lawful wife, but not to normally cohabit with her (paralambano gunaika), since morally she belonged to God as his handmaid, having begotten a child together with the Father. The angel expected Joseph to abstain from having intercourse with Mary. The Greek phrase in the Gospel of Matthew (originally written in Hebrew) does not correspond with those we find in Genesis 30:3, 16-17: bo e-lei-ha imma, vai-yish-kav imma. Mary was not meant to "come together" with Joseph or to "lay with him".

When speaking to Mary, the angel tells her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." A man "laying his power over" (resuth) a woman is a semitic euphemism for entering into a marital relationship. The word "overshadow" or the phrase "spread his wing or cloak over" a woman means the same thing. Ruth intended to have marital relations with Boaz when she told him: "I am your handmaid. Spread the corner of your cloak (tallith) over me, for you are my next of kin" (Ruth 3:9). Tallith, literally "wing" (kannaph) is derived from the word tellal, which means shadow. Jesus referred to Israel as his bride when he said: "How many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were unwilling" (Lk 13:34).

The Judeo-Christians of the nascent church in Palestine perceived Mary to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the bride of God as the Lord's handmaid and daughter. Her relationship with God was a marital one in the mystical sense just as Israel's relationship to YHWH was. Thus Mary was seen as belonging to God alone. A marital relationship requires the mutual exchange of vows and entering into an exclusive covenant relationship. For this reason Jesus forbade divorce and condemned adultery.

"Again I passed by you and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of my cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you; you became mine, says the Lord God."
Ezekiel 16, 8

We have documented written evidence from the 6th century B.C., long before the 1st century; the inspired written word that belongs to the deposit of faith.

"The New Testament lies hidden in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New Testament."
St. Augustine

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, in a literate culture the written is typically understood to be superior, but that is a more recent development. The early Christians lived in a largely oral culture, and both the written and oral were maintained.

1. This continued emphasis that you have no confirmation is stunning.


2. While I'm not a professional historian of the First Century, I recall being taught that literacy was amazingly high at this time. Recall those in the NT that were literate (or example, Zacariah WRITES, "His name is John"). Your defense of this specific VOW of Mary and the precise CONTENT thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER by saying, "Well, we have nothing because it was an illiterate culture" is both just an admission you realize your apologetic is weak and needs an excuse, and again hinges on a point I'm pretty such you won't document as true - that it is extremely unlikely that Mary and Joseph and those who knew them would almost certainly be illiterate and thus never noted this tidbit of sex information.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Washed again, if you don't trust the doctrines of the Church that canonized the Scriptures in the 4th Century, you can't trust the NT either.

We all realize that there's not a denomination on the planet that agrees with the EOC or RCC or EOC or LDS on what is and is not Scripture. How in the WORLD that reality confirms this specific VOW that Mary is claimed to have made to God, the exact CONTENT thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary had No Sex EVER.


I disagree with this common "apologetic" offered to this Dogma: that if a teacher is correct on one point, ergo such MUST be regarded as correct at ALL points. It's silly and YOU don't accept that reasoning so why should we? Why would you want US to follow a rubric YOU reject? After all Obama says there are 50 US States (is that correct) and he states that abortion-on-demand is a fundamental right that must be permitted and allowed (and often paid for) by the government, using YOUR rubic, he ergo MUST be correct about abortion. Luther affirmed the Trinity (is the Trinity correct?) and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, so using your rubric, it is mandated that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Again, if YOU don't accept your rubric, then why suggest we should?

The rest of your post simply reveals disinformation about the Scriptures and is entirely irrelevant to anything here and appears to be just an attempt at diversion and evasion.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

I'm sorry, what I should have said is what proof do you have that Mary did not take a vow. We have been presenting evidence that supports the notion that she took a vow. Where is your evidence that she did not?

1. You seem very intent on reversing positions.


2. Your rubric here is both disallowed and silly. No one can prove a negative, and it is silly to argue that if something can't be proven wrong, ergo it is a dogmatic fact. It is telling you resort to such. Prove to me that there is not 6.321 billion furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor. Can't? Ergo, is it a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of fact that it is so? Where is your evidence that Mary was not 8 feet tall, had pink hair and lived almost entirely on fish tacos? You can't. Your rubric that "ergo, it's a dogmatic fact" is just silly.

What the early church fathers from the 4th century said

Ah. Now we're getting a very different argument. Yes - beginning some THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Mary died and everyone who possibility even theoretically could have known (and spilled the beans) this tidbit of sex info had died, the RCC has found a couple of snippets that it interprets as expressing this opinion. Yep. That's what the Protestants have been saying and what some members of the RC and EO denominations have been ridiculing but now you are agreeing with.


NO ONE denies that some today believe in this. Why, God knows - but they do. But you, too, see unaware of the discussion here. The issue is not whether some believe it, the issue is if it's TRUE. No one denies that many believe in Bigfoot, in alien abductions, that the US is keeping alien bodies at Area 51, that Obama is born in Africa. Luther believed that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ, LDS believe that Joseph Smith found those plates, that Starbucks coffee is better than Dunkin Donuts Coffee. That's not the issue, is it? The issue is this specific VOW it is claimed Mary made to God - did she? The precise, specific, particular CONTENT of said vow (was it as claimed?), and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER - not "do some believe Mary had no Sex?"



.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

We all realize that there's not a denomination on the planet that agrees with the EOC or RCC or EOC or LDS on what is and is not Scripture. How in the WORLD that reality confirms this specific VOW that Mary is claimed to have made to God, the exact CONTENT thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary had No Sex EVER.


I disagree with this common "apologetic" offered to this Dogma: that if a teacher is correct on one point, ergo such MUST be regarded as correct at ALL points. It's silly and YOU don't accept that reasoning so why should we? Why would you want US to follow a rubric YOU reject? After all Obama says there are 50 US States (is that correct) and he states that abortion-on-demand is a fundamental right that must be permitted and allowed (and often paid for) by the government, using YOUR rubic, he ergo MUST be correct about abortion. Luther affirmed the Trinity (is the Trinity correct?) and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, so using your rubric, it is mandated that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Again, if YOU don't accept your rubric, then why suggest we should?

The rest of your post simply reveals disinformation about the Scriptures and is entirely irrelevant to anything here and appears to be just an attempt at diversion and evasion.






.

You still aren't getting this concept. The dogma is not based on any ONE person's opinion. It is not the same as saying Obama says there are 50 states, therefore Obama is correct about everything else, or Luther said one thing that was correct, therefore he must be correct about everything else. That is a false comparison which only demonstrates that you do not understand what you are arguing against.