Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[bbbbbbb]

That is true...I think that since the virginity of Mary was important and declared as such in the Gospel then we do not have to worry about being nosy....That would be like accusing Luke of gossiping because he calls her "Virgin Mary"...

BTW why it is in the Creed then? And why it was important she was a virgin before she gave birth to Christ? Just cuirous here..

I am not aware of anyone here at CF that does not believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus Christ and who do not view it as very important. The issue being discuss here is not that fact, but the allegation that she took a vow of perpetual virginity and remains a virgin to the very moment and for eternity.

 

[Philothei]

You haven't documented that her PERPETUAL virginity was important. At all. Much less of the most important level possible. Yes - I know - you tried to say that even a single case of a wife loving sharing marital intimacies with her husband makes her impure, defiled, undevoted, uncommitted but you presented NOTHING to show this is true or how this documents that Mary Had No Sex Ever.

Did I say that where?

No. There's NOTHING in the Gospels that says Mary had no sex ever. NOTHING that says She died (or didn't) as a virgin. I think you know that.

I think ... I already brought out evidence for my beliefs I am awaiting for you to bring information as to where she said she was not a virgin

It's not. It affirms Mary as a virgin at the Nativity. It says nothing about Her virginity at Her death/undeath. It says nothing about her being a PERPETUAL virgin. I think you know that.

It does as VIRGIN is a tittle we already gone that path.

 

[Philothei]

I didn't say that, did I?


IN MY OPINION, part of honoring someone is telling the truth about them and respecting them. Read what you quoted from me.




.

I do not know did you?


Telling the truth about them of what one gets from the Bible (Mary had no kids, Mary was EV per Luke and the Greek grammar testifies to it) plus the fathers of the church. This is my truth; and the opposite is for your truth that sitting on the fence is honoring and respecting Her. Why would either one or not knowing is NOT honoring her?

 

[Philothei]

I am not aware of anyone here at CF that does not believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus Christ and who do not view it as very important. The issue being discuss here is not that fact, but the allegation that she took a vow of perpetual virginity and remains a virgin to the very moment and for eternity.

Why is her virginity important before she concieved Christ?

 

[Thekla]

Why is her virginity important before she concieved Christ?

I agree, this is an important question.

After all, God used many whose prior life was less than stellar; why not a married woman with children to bear Christ, as there is no shame in being married and having children.

In one sense, the only event that was truly particular to Christ (in terms of normal human lifespan) was His resurrection. So why a virgin for the incarnation ?

 

[justinangel]

Why is her virginity important before she concieved Christ?

This question leads to the question why Mary's virginity was important to God. He could have had a married woman with children of her own conceive and bear Jesus, but he didn't for reasons of his own, which I believe are to be found in the precepts of the Torah that concern marriage and adultery, notwithstanding the importance of Jesus being the firstborn child. It does appear that God chose a woman who had intended not to have any children of her own. So it was no coincidence that Mary was a virgin when the angel appeared to her. How we view Mary's virginity reflects how we view God. Personally I find it hard to believe that God would dismiss any of his own precepts by fathering a child with a married woman in a putatative marriage. God would certainly consider his own precepts worthy of following, especially since he expects us to observe them in our lives. Nor could God ever contradict himself in his righteous judgements.


"And you shall observe all my statutes and all my judgements, and do them: I am the Lord."
Leviticus 19, 37

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You haven't documented that her PERPETUAL virginity was important. At all. Much less of the most important level possible. Yes - I know - you tried to say that even a single case of a wife loving sharing marital intimacies with her husband makes her impure, defiled, undevoted, uncommitted but you presented NOTHING to show this is true or how this documents that Mary Had No Sex Ever.





No. There's NOTHING in the Gospels that says Mary had no sex ever. NOTHING that says She died (or didn't) as a virgin. I think you know that.





It's not. It affirms Mary as a virgin at the Nativity. It says nothing about Her virginity at Her death/undeath. It says nothing about her being a PERPETUAL virgin. I think you know that.

I already brought out evidence for my beliefs

What has been presented is....


1) It's at least POSSIBLE that Mary had no other children. Irrelevant unless you document that it is biologically mandated the every act of sex results in a child.


2) Even a single act of loving sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage means that the wife is less pure, less devoted to God, less committed. But nothing was shown to confirm this true or how it confirms that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.


3. Ancient Catholic Tradition is to be rejected that embraces that the Incarnation and Annunciation happened on the same day, and that, while profoundly pressed, it is at least grammatically theoretically POSSIBLE that the present active tense COULD have some future implications so that while Mary said "I AM a virgin," this is MANDATED to mean "I will die - or not die - as a virgin and will have no sex EVER." But nothing has been shown that that's the grammatically mandated meaning, only that it's claimed that is a POSSIBLE meaning, if one rejects Catholic Tradition. (Nearly all the "apologetics" offered are attempts to say it's POSSIBLE - a point no one disputes and thus is irrelevant to anything).


4. Beginning around 220 AD, perhaps 180 years or so after Mary's death (the only one who could know if this tidbit of bedroom info is true), a church father said it was FALSE and denied it. This being the first reference to this view by "father" of the RC or EO denominations. Some years still later, a very controversal man often regarded as wrong embraced it as true although gave nothing to so indicate. As we move into the 4th and 5th centuries (HUNDREDS of years after the death of Mary), those who believed it seem to believe it. This proves that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

I am awaiting for you to bring information as to where she said she was not a virgin

You seem insistent on reversing our positions (I'm not sure why). Of all the denominations on the planet and in world history, there are only two that have an official position regarding Mary's sex life after Jesus was born (and in those two - it's a HUGE issue of ENORMOUS interest - it's proclaimed there in the boldest, loudest way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for and to all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. No other says anything about how often She had sex (if at all) during her lifetime - just as they don't say how often you have sex. They are "silent as were the Apostles" (according to you). So, there are only two that have a position that must be substantiated - the RC and EO denominations. The proverbial "ball" is in YOUR court.



Your rubic of "It's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth unless it can be proven false" is absurd and one YOU reject. Prove for us all that Joseph Smith didn't find those plates. Can't? Ah - then according to you, it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that he did. Prove for us all that there are not 6.321 billion furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor. Can't? Ah.... I'm actually certain you realize how absurd your rubric is - and yet you (and a few other members of the EO or RC denominations here) are defending and applying this very argument.





Consider...


The earliest source for this DOGMA of highest importance for and to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER is not from Mary, Joseph, Jesus, any Apostle or anyone who even theoretically could have spoken to any of them. It's not from Scripture. It's not even from the earliest "Fathers" of the RC or EO denominations.

The earliest source typically noted for this Dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER is the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 220), some 150 years perhaps after the death of Mary (the only one who could have known this tidbit of bedroom info). Oddly, it never mentions it. It does seem to express an opinion that Joseph was old (but not "too old to have sex") and that the noted siblings of Jesus were his - not Mary's. But it says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin or of Mary dying as a virgin. The author of this rejected book is unknown; there's no reason to theorize he was a "Church Father" in any denomination - then or now, nor is such commonly claimed.


About the same time, we have Tertullian (d, circa 220). However, he denied the virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth. He also firmly believed that the Jesus had brothers and sisters via Mary. This is the earliest personal witness we have to this issue, and he is a Church Father in both the RC and EO denominations.


Origen (d 254), by contrast, taught Mary's perpetual virginity. He is a controversal man - often at odds with official church teachings but he is the first one we know of that seems to affirm the teaching. He is generally regarded as a Church Father. He shares nothing to indicate that it's true, only that he believes it.


In the East, considerably later, St Basil the Great (d, circa 380) accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that it reflected the general sense of believers, though he did not consider it to be a dogma. This is at least 300 years after the death of Mary.


Among the sources for the above is the Catholic University of Dayton. campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq18.html








.

 

[Thekla]

So by effecting the virgin birth, God is saying that sex is bad ?

 

[Thekla]

What has been presented is....


1) It's at least POSSIBLE that Mary had no other children. Irrelevant unless you document that it is biologically mandated the every act of sex results in a child.


2) Even a single act of loving sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage means that the wife is less pure, less devoted to God, less committed. But nothing was shown to confirm this true or how it confirms that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.


3. Ancient Catholic Tradition is to be rejected that embraces that the Incarnation and Annunciation happened on the same day, and that, while profoundly pressed, it is at least grammatically theoretically POSSIBLE that the present active tense COULD have some future implications so that while Mary said "I AM a virgin," this is MANDATED to mean "I will die - or not die - as a virgin and will have no sex EVER." But nothing has been shown that that's the grammatically mandated meaning, only that it's claimed that is a POSSIBLE meaning, if one rejects Catholic Tradition. (Nearly all the "apologetics" offered are attempts to say it's POSSIBLE - a point no one disputes and thus is irrelevant to anything).


4. Beginning around 220 AD, perhaps 180 years or so after Mary's death (the only one who could know if this tidbit of bedroom info is true), a church father said it was FALSE and denied it. This being the first reference to this view by "father" of the RC or EO denominations. Some years still later, a very controversal man often regarded as wrong embraced it as true although gave nothing to so indicate. As we move into the 4th and 5th centuries (HUNDREDS of years after the death of Mary), those who believed it seem to believe it. This proves that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.










You seem insistent on reversing our positions (I'm not sure why). Of all the denominations on the planet and in world history, there are only two that have an official position regarding Mary's sex life after Jesus was born (and in those two - it's a HUGE issue of ENORMOUS interest - it's proclaimed there in the boldest, loudest way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for and to all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. No other says anything about how often She had sex (if at all) during her lifetime - just as they don't say how often you have sex. They are "silent as were the Apostles" (according to you). So, there are only two that have a position that must be substantiated - the RC and EO denominations. The proverbial "ball" is in YOUR court.



Your rubic of "It's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth unless it can be proven false" is absurd and one YOU reject. Prove for us all that Joseph Smith didn't find those plates. Can't? Ah - then according to you, it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that he did. Prove for us all that there are not 6.321 billion furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor. Can't? Ah.... I'm actually certain you realize how absurd your rubric is - and yet you (and a few other members of the EO or RC denominations here) are defending and applying this very argument.





Consider...


The earliest source for this DOGMA of highest importance for and to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER is not from Mary, Joseph, Jesus, any Apostle or anyone who even theoretically could have spoken to any of them. It's not from Scripture. It's not even from the earliest "Fathers" of the RC or EO denominations.

The earliest source typically noted for this Dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER is the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 220), some 150 years perhaps after the death of Mary (the only one who could have known this tidbit of bedroom info). Oddly, it never mentions it. It does seem to express an opinion that Joseph was old (but not "too old to have sex") and that the noted siblings of Jesus were his - not Mary's. But it says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin or of Mary dying as a virgin. The author of this rejected book is unknown; there's no reason to theorize he was a "Church Father" in any denomination - then or now, nor is such commonly claimed.


About the same time, we have Tertullian (d, circa 220). However, he denied the virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth. He also firmly believed that the Jesus had brothers and sisters via Mary. This is the earliest personal witness we have to this issue, and he is a Church Father in both the RC and EO denominations.


Origen (d 254), by contrast, taught Mary's perpetual virginity. He is a controversal man - often at odds with official church teachings but he is the first one we know of that seems to affirm the teaching. He is generally regarded as a Church Father. He shares nothing to indicate that it's true, only that he believes it.


In the East, considerably later, St Basil the Great (d, circa 380) accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that it reflected the general sense of believers, though he did not consider it to be a dogma. This is at least 300 years after the death of Mary.


Among the sources for the above is the Catholic University of Dayton. campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq18.html

As you know, neither Tertullian nor Origen are Saints in the EO.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What has been presented is....


1) It's at least POSSIBLE that Mary had no other children. Irrelevant unless you document that it is biologically mandated the every act of sex results in a child.


2) Even a single act of loving sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage means that the wife is less pure, less devoted to God, less committed. But nothing was shown to confirm this true or how it confirms that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.


3. Ancient Catholic Tradition is to be rejected that embraces that the Incarnation and Annunciation happened on the same day, and that, while profoundly pressed, it is at least grammatically theoretically POSSIBLE that the present active tense COULD have some future implications so that while Mary said "I AM a virgin," this is MANDATED to mean "I will die - or not die - as a virgin and will have no sex EVER." But nothing has been shown that that's the grammatically mandated meaning, only that it's claimed that is a POSSIBLE meaning, if one rejects Catholic Tradition. (Nearly all the "apologetics" offered are attempts to say it's POSSIBLE - a point no one disputes and thus is irrelevant to anything).


4. Beginning around 220 AD, perhaps 180 years or so after Mary's death (the only one who could know if this tidbit of bedroom info is true), a church father said it was FALSE and denied it. This being the first reference to this view by "father" of the RC or EO denominations. Some years still later, a very controversal man often regarded as wrong embraced it as true although gave nothing to so indicate. As we move into the 4th and 5th centuries (HUNDREDS of years after the death of Mary), those who believed it seem to believe it. This proves that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.




You seem insistent on reversing our positions (I'm not sure why). Of all the denominations on the planet and in world history, there are only two that have an official position regarding Mary's sex life after Jesus was born (and in those two - it's a HUGE issue of ENORMOUS interest - it's proclaimed there in the boldest, loudest way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for and to all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. No other says anything about how often She had sex (if at all) during her lifetime - just as they don't say how often you have sex. They are "silent as were the Apostles" (according to you). So, there are only two that have a position that must be substantiated - the RC and EO denominations. The proverbial "ball" is in YOUR court.



Your rubic of "It's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth unless it can be proven false" is absurd and one YOU reject. Prove for us all that Joseph Smith didn't find those plates. Can't? Ah - then according to you, it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that he did. Prove for us all that there are not 6.321 billion furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor. Can't? Ah.... I'm actually certain you realize how absurd your rubric is - and yet you (and a few other members of the EO or RC denominations here) are defending and applying this very argument.





Consider...


The earliest source for this DOGMA of highest importance for and to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER is not from Mary, Joseph, Jesus, any Apostle or anyone who even theoretically could have spoken to any of them. It's not from Scripture. It's not even from the earliest "Fathers" of the RC or EO denominations.

The earliest source typically noted for this Dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER is the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 220), some 150 years perhaps after the death of Mary (the only one who could have known this tidbit of bedroom info). Oddly, it never mentions it. It does seem to express an opinion that Joseph was old (but not "too old to have sex") and that the noted siblings of Jesus were his - not Mary's. But it says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin or of Mary dying as a virgin. The author of this rejected book is unknown; there's no reason to theorize he was a "Church Father" in any denomination - then or now, nor is such commonly claimed.


About the same time, we have Tertullian (d, circa 220). However, he denied the virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth. He also firmly believed that the Jesus had brothers and sisters via Mary. This is the earliest personal witness we have to this issue, and he is a Church Father in both the RC and EO denominations.


Origen (d 254), by contrast, taught Mary's perpetual virginity. He is a controversal man - often at odds with official church teachings but he is the first one we know of that seems to affirm the teaching. He is generally regarded as a Church Father. He shares nothing to indicate that it's true, only that he believes it.


In the East, considerably later, St Basil the Great (d, circa 380) accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that it reflected the general sense of believers, though he did not consider it to be a dogma. This is at least 300 years after the death of Mary.


Among the sources for the above is the Catholic University of Dayton. campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq18.html



.

So by effecting the virgin birth, God is saying that sex is bad ?

I'm NOT going to fall pray to you reporting me for a rule violation, as you know - we cannot debate the virgin birth of Jesus in this forum.





.

 

[Thekla]

I'm NOT going to fall pray to you reporting me for a rule violation, as you know - we cannot debate the virgin birth of Jesus in this forum.

Who is debating the virgin birth ?

I'm asking about the reason for a virgin birth instead of from a married woman with children.

The two questions are so far apart, the relationship of the questions does not even suggest nuance. They are completely different.

(Though if you disagree, there is an obligation to ask a MOD.)

 

[justinangel]

What has been presented is....


1) It's at least POSSIBLE that Mary had no other children. Irrelevant unless you document that it is biologically mandated the every act of sex results in a child.

It's impossible, but then you aren't fimilar with the divine precepts of the Torah regarding marriage.


2) Even a single act of loving sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage means that the wife is less pure, less devoted to God, less committed. But nothing was shown to confirm this true or how it confirms that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Marital Relations Ever.

The wife would be less pure if she had begotten a child with another person before consummating her marriage with her husband. If Mary had other children with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus, their marriage would have become putative: legally valid but immoral by the precepts of the Torah. So Mary's chastity is "of the highest importance and for all a matter of greatest certainty of the truth." How a Christian views this dogma reflects his perception of God's infinte righteousness and perfection.

3. Ancient Catholic Tradition is to be rejected that embraces that the Incarnation and Annunciation happened on the same day, and that, while profoundly pressed, it is at least grammatically theoretically POSSIBLE that the present active tense COULD have some future implications so that while Mary said "I AM a virgin," this is MANDATED to mean "I will die - or not die - as a virgin and will have no intercourse EVER." But nothing has been shown that that's the grammatically mandated meaning, only that it's claimed that is a POSSIBLE meaning, if one rejects Catholic Tradition.

(Nearly all the "apologetics" offered are attempts to say it's POSSIBLE - a point no one disputes and thus is irrelevant to anything).

It has been shown, but you choose to deny it, or at least have a hard time comprehending what is said to you.

4. Beginning around 220 AD, perhaps 180 years or so after Mary's death (the only one who could know if this tidbit of bedroom info is true), a church father said it was FALSE and denied it. This being the first reference to this view by "father" of the RC or EO denominations. Some years still later, a very controversal man often regarded as wrong embraced it as true although gave nothing to so indicate. As we move into the 4th and 5th centuries (HUNDREDS of years after the death of Mary), those who believed it seem to believe it. This proves that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that

Mary Had No Matrimonial Relations Ever.

There were no denominations back in 220 A.D., and if you're referring to Tertullian, what he apparently believed at a given time was not unamimously taught by all the other Patristic Fathers. In A.D. 213 he certainly professed the universal belief of the Church in Mary's perpetual virginity when he wrote: "And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin and wife to one husband" (On Monogamy, 8). The other Church Father you mean could be Origen (Commentary on John, 1:6: A.D. 220) who speaks for the whole Church when he writes: "For if Mary, as those declare, who with sound mind extol her, had no other children but Jesus...". Origen believed if Mary had other children, Jesus wouldn't have commended her to John's care.

You seem insistent on reversing our positions (I'm not sure why). Of all the denominations on the planet and in world history, there are only two that have an official position regarding Mary's sex life after Jesus was born (and in those two - it's a HUGE issue of ENORMOUS interest - it's proclaimed there in the boldest, loudest way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for and to all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Conjugal Relations EVER. No other says anything about how often She had intercourse (if at all) during her lifetime - just as they don't say how often you have sex. They are "silent as were the Apostles" (according to you). So, there are only two that have a position that must be substantiated - the RC and EO denominations. The proverbial "ball" is in YOUR court.

More Protestants than you think believe Mary was ever virgin. But then Protestants can't even agree whether an infant ought to be baptized.

Your rubic of "It's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth unless it can be proven false" is absurd and one YOU reject. Prove for us all that Joseph Smith didn't find those plates. Can't? Ah - then according to you, it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that he did.

Joseph Smith had no divine mandate to teach anything. He presumed he had apostolic authority, although he couldn't trace what he imagined to be the divine office back to the apostles. All he did was buy a Bible at the local bookstore, study theology, and establish his own church. Not much authority to claim anything, I'm afraid.

Consider...

The earliest source typically noted for this Dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No CONJUGAL RELATIONS EVER is the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 220), some 150 years perhaps after the death of Mary (the only one who could have known this tidbit of bedroom info). Oddly, it never mentions it. It does seem to express an opinion that Joseph was old (but not "too old to have intercourse") and that the noted siblings of Jesus were his - not Mary's. But it says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin or of Mary dying as a virgin. The author of this rejected book is unknown; there's no reason to theorize he was a "Church Father" in any denomination - then or now, nor is such commonly claimed.

The Pseudo-Gospel of James dates back to c A.D. 120. So it is of much historical value.

About the same time, we have Tertullian (d, circa 220). However, he denied the virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth. He also firmly believed that the Jesus had brothers and sisters via Mary. This is the earliest personal witness we have to this issue, and he is a Church Father in both the RC and EO denominations.

Not in A.D. 213. He may have denied it at some point because it didn't fit in with his personal theology. But no individual father is the Magisterium of the Church. As a private theologian he is fallible and prone to error. What the fathers taught unanimously belonged to the deposit of faith.

Origen

(d 254), by contrast, taught Mary's perpetual virginity. He is a controversal man - often at odds with official church teachings but he is the first one we know of that seems to affirm the teaching. He is generally regarded as a Church Father. He shares nothing to indicate that it's true, only that he believes it.

Again, Origen bore testimony to what was universally held by the Church. His predecessors Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus shared his belief.

In the East, considerably later, St Basil the Great (d, circa 380) accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that it reflected the general sense of believers, though he did not consider it to be a dogma. This is at least 300 years after the death of Mary.

The PV of Mary wasn't a dogma at this time, as weren't other Christological doctrines that eventually were defined. This doesn't mean that they were regarded to be fallible teachings of the Church.

PAX

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why is her virginity important before she concieved Christ?

Thank you for starting the new thread on this topic rather than derail this thread.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

What has been presented is....


1) It's at least POSSIBLE that Mary had no other children. Irrelevant unless you document that it is biologically mandated the every act of sex results in a child.


.​

​

It's impossible, but then you aren't fimilar with the divine precepts of the Torah regarding marriage.

If you have something that indicates it is a IMPOSSIBLE for Mary to have had children - please give it. Although it remains irrelevant to the discussion here since it is not documented that every single act of marital intimacies results in a child, thus "no children" is not confirmation of "no sex"

2) Even a single act of loving sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage means that the wife is less pure, less devoted to God, less committed. But nothing was shown to confirm this true or how it confirms that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Marital Relations Ever.

If Mary had other children with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus, their marriage would have become putative: legally valid but immoral

1. You seem to be confused, the issue here is not "Jesus Had No Sibs" the dogma is that "Mary Had No Sex EVER."


2. Not that it has any relevance whatsoever, but please document that if a wife has two children, that makes their married immoral. Quote the Scripture on that. But again, you seem confused - the issue is not whether Mary had a second child, the question is the confirmation that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest importance to all that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Let's try to stick to the issue.

3. Ancient Catholic Tradition is to be rejected that embraces that the Incarnation and Annunciation happened on the same day, and that, while profoundly pressed, it is at least grammatically theoretically POSSIBLE that the present active tense COULD have some future implications so that while Mary said "I AM a virgin," this is MANDATED to mean "I will die - or not die - as a virgin and will have no intercourse EVER." But nothing has been shown that that's the grammatically mandated meaning, only that it's claimed that is a POSSIBLE meaning, if one rejects Catholic Tradition. (Nearly all the "apologetics" offered are attempts to say it's POSSIBLE - a point no one disputes and thus is irrelevant to anything).



4. Beginning around 220 AD, perhaps 180 years or so after Mary's death (the only one who could know if this tidbit of bedroom info is true), a church father said it was FALSE and denied it. This being the first reference to this view by "father" of the RC or EO denominations. Some years still later, a very controversal man often regarded as wrong embraced it as true although gave nothing to so indicate. As we move into the 4th and 5th centuries (HUNDREDS of years after the death of Mary), those who believed it seem to believe it. This proves that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.


.

if you're referring to Tertullian, what he apparently believed at a given time was not unamimously taught by all the other Patristic Fathers. In A.D. 213 he certainly professed the universal belief of the Church in Mary's perpetual virginity when he wrote: "And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin and wife to one husband" (On Monogamy, 8). The other Church Father you mean could be Origen (Commentary on John, 1:6: A.D. 220) who speaks for the whole Church when he writes: "For if Mary, as those declare, who with sound mind extol her, had no other children but Jesus...". Origen believed if Mary had other children, Jesus wouldn't have commended her to John's care.

Yes, the first mention we have of this tidbit of bedroom info is from Tertullian around 220 who DENIES your view. Later, a far less esteemed one, affirms the view but doesn't substantiate it as true. A STUNNING confirmation that this tidbit of sexual info is a matter of greatest importance for and to all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth, do you conclude?

You seem insistent on reversing our positions (I'm not sure why). Of all the denominations on the planet and in world history, there are only two that have an official position regarding Mary's sex life after Jesus was born (and in those two - it's a HUGE issue of ENORMOUS interest - it's proclaimed there in the boldest, loudest way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for and to all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. No other says anything about how often She had intercourse (if at all) during her lifetime - just as they don't say how often you have sex. They are "silent as were the Apostles" (according to you). So, there are only two that have a position that must be substantiated - the RC and EO denominations. The proverbial "ball" is in YOUR court.



​

Your rubic of "It's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth unless it can be proven false" is absurd and one YOU reject. Prove for us all that Joseph Smith didn't find those plates. Can't? Ah - then according to you, it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that he did.
​

Consider...

The earliest source typically noted for this Dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No CONJUGAL RELATIONS EVER is the apocryphal Protogospel of James (circa 220), some 150 years perhaps after the death of Mary (the only one who could have known this tidbit of bedroom info). Oddly, it never mentions it. It does seem to express an opinion that Joseph was old (but not "too old to have intercourse") and that the noted siblings of Jesus were his - not Mary's. But it says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin or of Mary dying as a virgin. The author of this rejected book is unknown; there's no reason to theorize he was a "Church Father" in any denomination - then or now, nor is such commonly claimed.


.

The Pseudo-Gospel of James dates back to c A.D. 120. So it is of much historical value.

No.

No.

Irrelevant since it doesn't say that Mary Had No Sex EVER. It says nothing about her sex life after Jesus was born at all, much less at the moment of her death or undeath.

About the same time, we have Tertullian (d, circa 220). However, he denied the virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth. He also firmly believed that the Jesus had brothers and sisters via Mary. This is the earliest personal witness we have to this issue, and he is a Church Father in both the RC and EO denominations.
​

He may have denied it at some point because it didn't fit in with his personal theology.

Okay.

<b>

Origen (d 254), by contrast, taught Mary's perpetual virginity. He is a controversal man - often at odds with official church teachings but he is the first one we know of that seems to affirm the teaching. He is generally regarded as a Church Father. He shares nothing to indicate that it's true, only that he believes it.
​

</b>

His predecessors Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus shared his belief.

Nice.


So, the first comment on this (by one fairly highly esteemed) was to REJECT it. The second (a rather controversal figure) is to support it. So much for "early witnesses."

In the East, considerably later, St Basil the Great (d, circa 380) accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that it reflected the general sense of believers, though he did not consider it to be a dogma. This is at least 300 years after the death of Mary.
​

This doesn't mean that they were regarded to be fallible teachings of the Church.

It also doesn't confirm it as dogma.








.

 

[razeontherock]

Forgive my lateness to the party here, but this is the crux of the issue to me:

By reading Luke 1:34, in which Mary asks the angel, "How shall this be, since I do not know a man?" [NAB], we can infer with certainty that she had made a vow of chastity to God. A woman who was already married by betrothal and intended to have marital relations would not ask by what manner she would conceive a child once she was morally permitted to by Mosaic Law. And it wasn't until the angel answered her question that Mary learned the conception of Jesus would be a supernatural one.

I do appreciate your sharing of this info, and I recognize RC has many books outside of the Bible that you look to for truth.

Still, what you say does not logically follow in the least! Mary had not yet married, meaning she was a virgin at the annunciation. She did not respond with an "I know I'll conceive, and i look forward to being married." She also had the benefit of knowing the only other "anunciations" were miraculous in nature. Her contact with an Angel further clued her in that something miraculous was taking place, wouldn't you think?

I don't see that any of this points to her taking a vow of chastity. Further, I think it is preposterous that someone who took an oath of celibacy would marry, and I think it incredibly more preposterous that a man would marry such a woman. It makes no sense! We don't read that Joseph thought to put her away privately when he learned of her vow of celibacy ...

 

[Thekla]

Forgive my lateness to the party here, but this is the crux of the issue to me:



I do appreciate your sharing of this info, and I recognize RC has many books outside of the Bible that you look to for truth.

Still, what you say does not logically follow in the least! Mary had not yet married, meaning she was a virgin at the annunciation. She did not respond with an "I know I'll conceive, and i look forward to being married." She also had the benefit of knowing the only other "anunciations" were miraculous in nature. Her contact with an Angel further clued her in that something miraculous was taking place, wouldn't you think?

Hi, Raze

But Gabriel gave no indication; in fact, Abraham's wait for Isaac was quite long. All of the promised births were in a sense miraculous (Sarah was barren), but all were conceived through ordinary means.

We do have record of the background on this issue, which was familiar to the Jews (including, it can be assumed, Mary).

I don't see that any of this points to her taking a vow of chastity. Further, I think it is preposterous that someone who took an oath of celibacy would marry, and I think it incredibly more preposterous that a man would marry such a woman. It makes no sense! We don't read that Joseph thought to put her away privately when he learned of her vow of celibacy ...

The tense used in Greek is a "state of being" tense, not time.

Per the time tenses used, Gabriel uses the future tense. Mary's future (she is betrothed), if she expects an "ordinary" marriage, includes the time frame of Gabriel's statements.

The betrothal was a legal contract; even though not married, a dalliance was still legally adultery. And morally reprobate.

There is another question, too.
Sex is not the central point of marriage - and people do marry persons whose medical conditions prohibit conjugal relations. Including people I know personally (more than one couple). And couples stay together when a condition prohibits continuation of conjugal relations - and still consider that theis is not central to their marriage. Including people I know personally.

See again the conversation between Gabriel and Mary -- compare the tenses and the time frame.

Mary's response makes no sense.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But Gabriel gave no indication

Exactly, the angel simply shared a prophecy (almost always done in the future tense). Your point that there is 'no indication' as to when seems to pretty much destroy the whole argument that ergo, Mary would be sexless AT THE MOMENT OF HER DEATH (OR UNDEATH) DECADES IN THE FUTURE. You can't have it both ways - that the text is "indefinite" AND "it confirms that it is a matter of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that at the moment of Mary's death (or was it undeath) she would be a virgin."

in fact, Abraham's wait for Isaac was quite long.

True enough, but where is it indicated that Mary's expectation was that this prophecy would come true at the moment of her death (or undeath)? Or even decades later? Or even years later? Or even months later? In fact, there is an ancient Catholic Tradition that the Annunciation and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY - not 70 years apart. IF Tradition is correct, the verb tenses make pretty good sense, don't they? IF Mary expected the prophecy to come true at the moment of her death, her response seems odd to me. I think what you seem to be supporting is that the text does NOT confirm that Mary would die (or not) as a virgin.

There is another question, too.

1. I just don't agree with you that if you can ask a question, ergo that's confirmation of a matter as a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth. I KNOW you have the ability to type questions - you've documented that very well. I just disagree with you on such being confirmation of ANYTHING other than your ability to type a question.


2. You seem intent that if this veiw is POSSIBLE, ergo it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and greatest certainty of truth. Of course, this thread is not "IS IT POSSIBLE?" since ALL THINGS are possible (including that Mary had sex 3 times a day). Yes - I think you have at least given a tiny bit of credibility (however small) that its' POSSIBLE. So what? Is it POSSIBLE Joseph Smith found those plates? If you believe what the angel said, "With God ALL THINGS are possible." Does that make it a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that he did?

Mary's response makes no sense.

Well, perhaps (again, you are just throwing out Tradition in this case, while insisting on docilic embrace of Tradition). But please explain, if it makes "no sense" how does that confirm that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?












.

 

[Thekla]

Exactly, the angel simply shared a prophecy (almost always done in the future tense). Your point that there is 'no indication' as to when seems to pretty much destroy the whole argument that ergo, Mary would be sexless AT THE MOMENT OF HER DEATH (OR UNDEATH) DECADES IN THE FUTURE. You can't have it both ways - that the text is "indefinite" AND "it confirms that it is a matter of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that at the moment of Mary's death (or was it undeath) she would be a virgin."

It demonstrates that according to Mary, her future did not include a plan to have children with Joseph.

True enough, but where is it indicated that Mary's expectation was that this prophecy would come true at the moment of her death (or undeath)? Or even decades later? Or even years later? Or even months later? In fact, there is an ancient Catholic Tradition that the Annunciation and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY - not 70 years apart. IF Tradition is correct, the verb tenses make pretty good sense, don't they? IF Mary expected the prophecy to come true at the moment of her death, her response seems odd to me. I think what you seem to be supporting is that the text does NOT confirm that Mary would die (or not) as a virgin.

The tense refers to a state of being, which does not have a "when" in time.

1. I just don't agree with you that if you can ask a question, ergo that's confirmation of a matter as a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth. I KNOW you have the ability to type questions - you've documented that very well. I just disagree with you on such being confirmation of ANYTHING other than your ability to type a question.

Not following; could you explain further ?

2. You seem intent that if this veiw is POSSIBLE, ergo it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and greatest certainty of truth. Of course, this thread is not "IS IT POSSIBLE?" since ALL THINGS are possible (including that Mary had sex 3 times a day). Yes - I think you have at least given a tiny bit of credibility (however small) that its' POSSIBLE. So what? Is it POSSIBLE Joseph Smith found those plates? If you believe what the angel said, "With God ALL THINGS are possible." Does that make it a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that he did?

Okay.

Well, perhaps (again, you are just throwing out Tradition in this case, while insisting on docilic embrace of Tradition). But please explain, if it makes "no sense" how does that confirm that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?

That is related to the topic on the other thread; perhaps it would be better to consider your question in that light.

Why was it important for Mary to be virgin at all ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why was it important for Mary to be virgin at all ?

Yes, I already acknowledged your ability to type questions. What I'm not following is how that gives confirmation 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 and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever. I see no connection, sorry.






.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, I already acknowledged your ability to type questions. What I'm not following is how that gives confirmation 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 and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever. I see no connection, sorry.

I think you can type questions, too

(And a vow/euxe is an intention of the heart. It is also means "prayer".)