Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

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

Nah, it's just history, anthropology.
We live in a different era, and have a different understanding.
Even in my own lifetime, our culture has gone from a handshake as a binding contract to recognized agreements requiring a written contract.
One's word (spoken) used to be binding.

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.

Zachariah also served in the Temple, where part of the purpose of the annual gathering of Jews was to hear the Scripture they often could not read.

"Literacy was amazingly high" is relative - and does not cover access to what was written, nor cultural standards of the time.

Your standard of "documentation" reflects a more recently developed standard - a standard reflecting a literate culture.

As for your conjecture on my motivation - can you document that ?











.[/quote]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I asked what gain the church would have to misslead its people?

Quote me where I posted that ANYONE was "misleading" anyone on anything? Accusing me of things I NEVER remotely said is not confirmation of the supposed specific VOW of Mary to God, 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.


The issue here is not sincerity. I have a hunch that the Gnostics and Arians were sincere. I think Mormons are sincere. I KNOW Calvinists are sincere. Is your rubric that if one is sincere, ergo whatever they say is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth? If one is sincere in believing in Bigfoot, ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Bigfoot exists? Is that really a rubric you believe and want us to follow?







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You still aren't getting this concept. The dogma is not based on any ONE person's opinion.

I see. If "X" number of persons have an opinion on something, it becomes a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth. Okay. How many need to have an opinion on it for it to be true? How many had an opinion about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born in the 7th Century? How many on whether UFO's are aliens visiting the Earth? How many on whether Joseph Smith found those plates?

you do not understand what you are arguing against.

I'm not arguing against anything. Nor need I. There are two denominations on the planet with a position on this, ergo two that have the burden of proof. They are the ones with a position (and it's dogma) about this supposed VOW Mary made to God and the precise content thereof, they are the ones insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of highest important to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. No denomination says that's wrong - no other denomination says ANYTHING on ANY level in ANY manner how often Mary and Joseph had sex - or you and your spouse, or your parents or your next door neighbors. That's YOUR concern - at least in terms of Mary. The RC and EO denominations are the only ones with dogma here, the only ones inisting THIS (how often Mary had sex) is a matter of highest importance for all to know and believe. The proverbial "ball" is in the court of two - the RC and EO. IF Truth matters (even when it involves Mary), then confirm it as true. Is that reasonable? What does the EO and RC desire when any expresses a view (even if it's FAR less than dogma) that they don't teach? Does the RC and EO have ANY interest and concern about truthfulness in others? In what self says?







.

 

[justinangel]

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 Marital Relations EVER.

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is of the highest importance. If God had used a woman just to beget a child with her and raise his Son, we would seriously have to question the credibility of our belief in his infinite righteousness and wisdom. Your conception of God is one of a transcendent being who is no less a power monger than Zeus is to satisfy his pleasure. Moreover, if Mary did not enter into a covenantal relationship with God, and the two did not exclusively belong to each other as couples morally do in a marriage, Jesus would be nothing but a bastard child to her and Joseph.

"The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin."
St. Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem (ante A.D. 379)

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?

Faulty analogies! Obama is a politician who hasn't been graced with the charism of infallibilty as an ecumenical council has. The presidential office isn't a divine office of the Church. So his policy on abortion is fallible and wrong.

Martin Luther was a private individual who had no more divine authority to formulate teachings and establish them as articles of faith than did the heretical Alexandrian priest Arius or Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople. The charism of infallibilty does not apply to individuals acting on their own initiatives. We shouldn't believe anything they say unless it is endorsed by the proper public teaching authority of the Church.

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.

Speak for yourself. The best you can do is quibble, CJ.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

I see. If "X" number of persons have an opinion on something, it becomes a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth. Okay. How many need to have an opinion on it for it to be true? How many had an opinion about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born in the 7th Century? How many on whether UFO's are aliens visiting the Earth? How many on whether Joseph Smith found those plates?

I'm not arguing against anything. Nor need I. There are two denominations on the planet with a position on this, ergo two that have the burden of proof. They are the ones with a position (and it's dogma) about this supposed VOW Mary made to God and the precise content thereof, they are the ones insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of highest important to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. No denomination says that's wrong - no other denomination says ANYTHING on ANY level in ANY manner how often Mary and Joseph had sex - or you and your spouse, or your parents or your next door neighbors. That's YOUR concern - at least in terms of Mary. The RC and EO denominations are the only ones with dogma here, the only ones inisting THIS (how often Mary had sex) is a matter of highest importance for all to know and believe. The proverbial "ball" is in the court of two - the RC and EO. IF Truth matters (even when it involves Mary), then confirm it as true. Is that reasonable? What does the EO and RC desire when any expresses a view (even if it's FAR less than dogma) that they don't teach? Does the RC and EO have ANY interest and concern about truthfulness in others? In what self says?

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was a dogma long before the 16th century. There is no court for any proverbial ball.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I see. If "X" number of persons have an opinion on something, it becomes a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth. Okay. How many need to have an opinion on it for it to be true? How many had an opinion about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born in the 7th Century? How many on whether UFO's are aliens visiting the Earth? How many on whether Joseph Smith found those plates?

I'm not arguing against anything. Nor need I. There are two denominations on the planet with a position on this, ergo two that have the burden of proof. They are the ones with a position (and it's dogma) about this supposed VOW Mary made to God and the precise content thereof, they are the ones insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of highest important to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. No denomination says that's wrong - no other denomination says ANYTHING on ANY level in ANY manner how often Mary and Joseph had sex - or you and your spouse, or your parents or your next door neighbors. That's YOUR concern - at least in terms of Mary. The RC and EO denominations are the only ones with dogma here, the only ones inisting THIS (how often Mary had sex) is a matter of highest importance for all to know and believe. The proverbial "ball" is in the court of two - the RC and EO. IF Truth matters (even when it involves Mary), then confirm it as true. Is that reasonable? What does the EO and RC desire when any expresses a view (even if it's FAR less than dogma) that they don't teach? Does the RC and EO have ANY interest and concern about truthfulness in others? In what self says?

.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was a dogma long before the 16th century.

Thank you. I've not a CLUE what that has to do with ANYTHING I posted in what you quoted, how it replies to ANY of the questions I raised in what you posted, or how that confirms that Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.







.

 

[justinangel]

Thank you. I've not a CLUE what that has to do with ANYTHING I posted in what you quoted, how it replies to ANY of the questions I raised in what you posted, or how that confirms that Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Marital Relations EVER.

Are you serious, or just trying to pull my whiskers?

 

[justinangel]

Thank you. I've not a CLUE what that has to do with ANYTHING I posted in what you quoted, how it replies to ANY of the questions I raised in what you posted, or how that confirms that Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Marital Relations EVER.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[chris4243]

Since the Bible says that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus was born, that's what I'm going to believe over people's nonsense traditions. Seriously, if Jesus was Joseph's firstborn and had brothers, where do you think those brothers came from?

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.


22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”[c]

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

I see. If "X" number of persons believe something, it becomes a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth. Okay. How many need to believe it for it to be true? How many believed it in the 7th Century? How many believe that UFO's are aliens visiting the Earth? How many believe that Joseph Smith found those plates?

Nope, still not getting it. It isn't a number. It is a consensus which is based on the handing down of Tradition, that which is true to the deposit of faith which is handed down and preserved in the Church. Not just any consensus will do - it has to be the consensus which is guided and guarded by the Holy Spirit.

X number of people can believe anything they want (UFOs, bigfoot, whatever), but that won't make it true. What makes it true is that is follows the Truth which has always been preached and taught and believed. So that excludes UFOs, bigfoot, the Pope being gay, and Mary having any children other than Jesus. None of those things were ever taught, preached, or believed by the Church.

I'm not arguing against anything. Nor need I. There are two denominations on the planet with a position on this, ergo two that have the burden of proof. They are the ones with a position (and it's dogma) about this supposed VOW Mary made to God and the precise content thereof, they are the ones insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of highest important to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. No denomination says that's wrong - no other denomination says ANYTHING on ANY level in ANY manner how often Mary and Joseph had sex - or you and your spouse, or your parents or your next door neighbors. That's YOUR concern - at least in terms of Mary. The RC and EO denominations are the only ones with dogma here, the only ones inisting THIS (how often Mary had sex) is a matter of highest importance for all to know and believe. The proverbial "ball" is in the court of two - the RC and EO. IF Truth matters (even when it involves Mary), then confirm it as true. Is that reasonable? What does the EO and RC desire when any expresses a view (even if it's FAR less than dogma) that they don't teach? Does the RC and EO have ANY interest and concern about truthfulness in others? In what self says?

The dogmatic truth of greatest importance is not that Mary had no sex EVER. That is incidental. Until you understand that it isn't Mary's "sex life" that the dogma is about, I don't think you'll get far in this discussion. Like others posts have said, it would mean nothing if Mary had no sex because she was physically unable.

I also do not believe that no other denomination says "anything on any level in any manner" about Joseph and Mary's marital relations. I can do a quick Google search on "did Jesus have siblings" and find page after page of apologetics on the "fact" that Mary had other children. With so many denominations and "nondenominations" out there claiming that their only dogma is the Bible, and these denominations and "nondenominations" teaching that Mary had other children, then yes they are saying something on some level in some manner about Joseph and Mary having sex.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

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 Marital Relations EVER.


.​

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is of the highest importance. If God had used a woman just to beget a child with her and raise his Son, we would seriously have to question the credibility of our belief in his infinite righteousness and wisdom. ​

Not a CLUE what you're talking about..... Are you suggesting that it is a dogmatic fact that if one has sex, even once, this makes that one incapable of being used by God? If Joseph and Her had shared loving marital intimacies once, say 20 years after Jesus was born, this would suggest at the Incarnation, She was impure (sex defiles the wife - even retroactively?) and thus Jesus would be impure (sex not only defiles the wife but her adult children?). And THAT is the confirmation of the specific VOW Mary made to God, 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? Really?

Your conception of God is one of a transcendent being who is no less a power monger than Zeus is to satisfy his pleasure. Moreover, if Mary did not enter into a covenantal relationship with God, and the two did not exclusively belong to each other as couples morally do in a marriage, Jesus would be nothing but a bastard child to her and Joseph.

So, are you saying that God literally had sex with Mary? Are you a Mormon?

Frankly, this whole line of thinking is SO disrespectful and disturbing that I refuse to comment.

​

"The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin."

St. Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem (ante A.D. 379)

Where is the substantiation here that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER, that she made a specific vow to God and the precise content of said vow? Yes, if correct, you have found a snippet from someone who believed this - from at least 300 years after Mary died (the only one who could have known this tidbit of sex info) with NOTHING to reveal it as true.

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?

Faulty analogies! Obama is a politician who hasn't been graced with the charism of infallibilty as an ecumenical council has. The presidential office isn't a divine office of the Church. So his policy on abortion is fallible and wrong.

Martin Luther was a private individual who had no more divine authority to formulate teachings and establish them as articles of faith than did the heretical Alexandrian priest Arius or Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople. The charism of infallibilty does not apply to individuals acting on their own initiatives. We shouldn't believe anything they say unless it is endorsed by the proper public teaching authority of the Church.

1. Your point was that IF one accepts a teacher as correct at one point, they must at every point. What you've done here is reveal that you reject your own argument, your own apologetic, your own rubric. Can't blame you. But then, oddly, you want me to accept what you reject.


2. If individual opinions are to be disregarded, why do you keep quoting individuals? Individuals who never say it's true or give a clue why it is - and who seem to reveal no connection to Mary, Joseph or anyone else who even theoretically could have known this tidbit of sex info.


3. Sure, if you want to insist that a certain teacher is exempt from accountibility and responsibility if said teacher alone so exempts self alone - then obviously, truth is irrelevant in that singular case. But then why are you posting here? The issue here is the TRUTHFULNESS of the claim of this specific vow, the precise content thereof, and whether it is a dogmatic FACT of highest IMPORTANCE to all and greatest CERTAINTY OF TRUTH that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The question is not whether it is sound to exempt a teacher (such as the EO or RC) if said teacher so exempts self from the whole issue of truthfulness, honesty, responsibility and accountability.








.

 

[Thekla]

Since the Bible says that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus was born, that's what I'm going to believe over people's nonsense traditions. Seriously, if Jesus was Joseph's firstborn and had brothers, where do you think those brothers came from?

Firstborn is a technical term; it is always applied to the firstborn both as a medical term (prima para is always used in the US to describe the first pregnancy even though it is not known that other children will be born), and also as a religious term, as the firstborn is to be dedicated to God.

Adelphos is used in the Scriptures to describe the following relationships: brother, half-brother, cousin, uncle, nephew, spiritual affinity, close friend/like-minded, in-law.

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Ews (while, translated until) does not imply a reversal of condition and is often used in Scripture to indicate never/forever.

22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”[c]

Because every firstborn is to be dedicated to God (see the OT).

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

See above.

Also recall that there were no punctuation marks in the earliest texts of the NT, and all letters were written the same size with no breaks/spaces between words. The translator decides what each word means, and how to break the text into words and sentences.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Let's pretend that Mary had no other children. We have zero evidence of that, but for the sake of advancing the discussion, let's pretend that. Now, how does that confirm that Mary made a specific vow to God, 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 (not that Jesus Had No Sibs Ever)? Lost me... Or is your entire point that every act of marital sharing results in a child? IF so, please give the biological documentation for that, otherwise we are to disregard your point.





.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

.


Let's pretend that Mary had no other children. We have zero evidence of that, but for the sake of advancing the discussion, let's pretend that. Now, how does that confirm that Mary made a specific vow to God, 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 (not that Jesus Had No Sibs Ever)? Lost me... Or is your entire point that every act of marital sharing results in a child? IF so, please give the biological documentation for that, otherwise we are to disregard your point.





.

I lost you? Okay, I'll try again.

The point of the dogma is that Mary had dedicated herself as a handmaid to the Lord, and her virginity is her state of inward purity and dedication to God, so much so that He chose her to be Theotokos, and all the implications of who Christ is based on this. Her bodily status, which you keep focusing on as if it's the entire point of the dogma, is only an outward sign of her true virginity which is her total dedication to the Lord - and this purity, by definition, precludes any passions of the flesh/mind (this is not just sexual). It is her internal purity - her true virginity - which causes her not to have sex. It isn't the fact that she didn't have sex that causes her to be a virgin. The way you focus on her sex life indicates that your understanding of the dogma is backwards.

Of course, sex does not always result in children. My point is that when other denominations (and "nondenominations") teach that Mary had other children, they are teaching that Mary and Joseph had sex. Unless you think they're teaching that Mary became pregnant with Jesus' "siblings" in some other way?

 

[Thekla]

The point of the dogma is that Mary had dedicated herself as a handmaid to the Lord, and her virginity is her state of inward purity and dedication to God, so much so that He chose her to be Theotokos. Her bodily status, which you keep focusing on as if it's the entire point of the dogma, is only an outward sign of her true virginity which is her total dedication to the Lord - and this purity, by definition, precludes any passions of the flesh/mind (this is not just sexual). It is her internal purity - her true virginity - which causes her not to have sex. It isn't the fact that she didn't have sex that causes her to be a virgin. The way you focus on her sex life indicates that your understanding of the dogma is backwards.

 

[justinangel]

Since the Bible says that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus was born, that's what I'm going to believe over people's nonsense traditions. Seriously, if Jesus was Joseph's firstborn and had brothers, where do you think those brothers came from?

Jesus wasn't Joseph's firstborn. Jesus is the Only-begotten Son of the Father, who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was Mary's firstborn son.

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son.
Matthew 1, 24-25

This is the English version of Jerome's Latin Vulgate translated from the Greek. The conjunction "till" or "until" is heos in the Greek, and it doesn't function to reference the future. Matthew is emphasizing that Mary had no relations with Joseph "before" Jesus was born to affirm the virgin birth. He is addressing Jews, and so first cites the prophet Isaiah to confirm the Christian belief in the Incarnation (vv. 22-23).

22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”[c]

The title firstborn means that the child is consecrated to God and entitled to special privileges and rights. This title also carries with it special obligations conferred on the child, even if he doesn't have siblings who follow. The term does not mean that Jesus was the first child born before others.

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

That someone in the crowd and Jesus were speaking in Aramaic. The terms brother and sister are semitic idiomatic expresssions that can refer to any next of kin, or tribe member, or disciple of our Lord.

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I lost you? Okay, I'll try again.

The point of the dogma is that Mary had dedicated herself as a handmaid to the Lord, and her virginity is her state of inward purity and dedication to God,

So, it's a point not to the issue of this thread? Perhaps then we should not discuss it here.

Perhaps this requires another thread in another forum, but why does a single mutual sharing of marital intimacies reveal the inward impurity of the wife and that she thus is not dedicated to God? In your denomination, is it a teaching that the first time a wife so lovingly shares, she is now impure and not dedicated to God?

It is her internal purity - her true virginity - which causes her not to have sex.

I see. I've not a clue what that has to do with anything in this thread, but I see. So one who is truly pure is one who has not had sex. Is this true only for wives or also husbands? An act of loving sharing of marital intimacies makes one impure, sinful, etc. I wonder why God told Adam and Eve - still in the Garden, BEFORE the Fall, before their was sin - to be fruitful? Oh, well. I got your point. IF Mary had EVER lovingly shared intimacies, She would be impure cuz such would defile her (and also Joseph) because that's what it does (does your denomination thus recommend to wives not to have sex?). Got it. I don't agree with it, but I understand. I can see how that would relate to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but how does that confirm that Mary made this specific vow to God, the exact content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? In any case, you'd first need to confirm that the loving, sharing of marital intimacies (well, once anyway) specifically makes the wife impure and undevoted to God.

Of course, sex does not always results in children. My point is that when other denominations (and "nondenominations") teach that Mary had other children, they are teaching that Mary and Joseph had sex.

1. None does.


2. Yes, obviously, if Mary had other children than your dogma is heresy. But the inverse is not true. Even IF you could document that Mary had no other children (and, of course, you can't), that does not document that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER - unless you can biologically document that every single act of such sharing results in a born child that can be documented.






.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

So, it's a point not to the issue of this thread? Perhaps then we should not discuss it here.

Wait, so you can talk about the EO dogma (you mention it in nearly every post) but I cannot? You're allowed to mischaracterize our dogma, but my attempt to correct your misunderstanding is off topic? I see.

Perhaps this requires another thread in another forum, but why does a single mutual sharing of marital intimacies reveal the inward impurity of the wife and that she thus is not dedicated to God? In your denomination, is it a teaching that the first time a wife so lovingly shares, she is now impure and not dedicated to God?

I see. I've not a clue what that has to do with anything in this thread, but I see. So one who is truly pure is one who has not had sex. Is this true only for wives or also husbands? An act of loving sharing of marital intimacies makes one impure, sinful, etc. I wonder why God told Adam and Eve - still in the Garden, BEFORE the Fall, before their was sin - to be fruitful? Oh, well. I got your point. IF Mary had EVER lovingly shared intimacies, She would be impure cuz such would defile her (and also Joseph) because that's what it does (does your denomination thus recommend to wives not to have sex?). Got it. I don't agree with it, but I understand. I can see how that would relate to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but how does that confirm that Mary made this specific vow to God, the exact content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? In any case, you'd first need to confirm that the loving, sharing of marital intimacies (well, once anyway) specifically makes the wife impure and undevoted to God.

I am saying that in dedicating one's life totally in purity to the LORD, sex is not part of the equation. It's like in Matthew 22:30 where Jesus says that at the resurrection people will not marry but will be like the angels in heaven. We will be totally dedicated to the Lord, and sex is simply not part of that.

I am not saying that one act of sex negates all devotion to God, but that the the complete and total purity of heart that Mary had in HER devotion to God precludes her ever having any of the passions of the flesh/mind (and not just sexual, but ANY passions at all) that are implicit in sexual relations.

In other words, one act of sex does not knock down 100% purity/devotion to 0% purity/devotion. However, 100% purity/devotion does not have room for ANY fleshly passions at all. 100% purity/devotion leaves no room for sex.

(By the way, EO do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.)

1. None does.

I disagree. There are quite a few denominations which claim to be based solely on the Bible and which also teach that Mary had other children. And unless you're saying they're teaching that Mary did not get pregnant with those other children by having sex with Joseph, then you're wrong.

2. Yes, obviously, if Mary had other children than your dogma is heresy. But the inverse is not true. Even IF you could document that Mary had no other children (and, of course, you can't), that does not document that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER - unless you can biologically document that every single act of such sharing results in a born child that can be documented.

Again, I will correct your misunderstanding of the dogma. It is not of the highest importance that Mary had no sex. That is incidental. She is not EV because she did not have sex - she did not have sex because she is EV.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Wait, so you can talk about the EO dogma (you mention it in nearly every post) but I cannot? .

Of course, you can address the issue before us: Is it TRUE that Mary made a vow to God and what is claimed was the precise content of said vow? Is it true that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? Sure! I encourage you to do so!

Are you suggesting the the EO does not teach that she was an EVER virgin, a PERPETUAL virgin, that she never once had sex? That's NOT what is taught?

I am saying that in dedicating one's life totally in purity to the LORD, sex is not part of the equation. It's like in Matthew 22:30 where Jesus says that at the resurrection people will not marry but will be like the angels in heaven. We will be totally dedicated to the Lord, and sex is simply not part of that.

I can see how that might (might) have some relevance to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but how does it confirm that Mary made a vow to God, the precise content of said vow, that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?


Jesus point is that IN HEAVEN we will not be married. Jesus is not saying, "Mary Had No Sex EVER." Nor is He saying that if a wife even once shares marital intimacies with her husband, she is impure or defiled or not dedicated to God. This verse just doesn't remotely indicate either of those (unrelated) points.

I am not saying that one act of sex negates all devotion to God

... but that it DOES causes the wife to "lose" some of her devotion for God, her dedication, her purity. Can you document that?


Again, how does that confirm that Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?

There are quite a few denominations which claim to be based solely on the Bible and which also teach that Mary had other children.

I'm not aware of a single denomination that has an official teaching, doctrine, dogma or de fide declaration that Jesus Had Siblings or that Mary Had Lotsa Sex. To my knowledge, every denomination but 2 (the RC and EO) has no official teaching of any level on either issue. That's not to say some individuals in them might have an opinion on this, Dunkin Donuts Coffee, the place of President Obamas' birth and a plethora of other issues, but no official denomination position. Nope. This whole issue of how often couples have sex - if at all (well, at least THIS couple) is an issue in only two. And there it's H.U.G.E.






.

 

[Philothei]

Since the Bible says that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus was born, that's what I'm going to believe over people's nonsense traditions. Seriously, if Jesus was Joseph's firstborn and had brothers, where do you think those brothers came from?

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.


22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”[c]

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Why Luke then calls her "virgin" that is HER title... Why would I call my mom "virgin Anastasia" if she was not going to 'remain' virgin...All the "hints" in the Gospel and the actual Greek grammar testify that the "virgin" was to remain so.. It was the title she was about to be 'blessed" by all generations and remembered as.

Nah no conspiracy theorist can establish that she did not remain virgin as no gain for the Church is actually shown that there was a VALID reason for doing so. Mary's virginity did not make the Church wealthier. Mary's celeibacy is NOT based on the monastic vow rather a vow depended on the Jewish law...It is part of Biblical tradition of the vow as described in the OT.