Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

Read what you quoted from me.


I understand (I really do) your desire to deflect the discussion from the issue of the thread and the dogma of your denomination, but let's try to keep on track here, okay?

You are refusing to discuss the ground from which you understand; how can we dialogue if we do not have a common understanding from which to proceed ?

Your terminology is by turns vague and selective.
How can I know how to respond if I don't know what you understand ?

How do you as a Lutheran understand "dogma" through your experience of Lutheran dogma ?

Further, you persistently use a definition of "denomination" which is completely foreign to Scripture and Christian understanding; I cannot even rely on my knowledge of Scripture to communicate with you.

 

[Philothei]

Epiphanius of Salamis:"... the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). ..."And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Where you looking proof that common folk of this fella's times? Here you are Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Epiphanius of Salamis:"... the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). ..."And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

This is from the Catechism of WHAT denomination?


So, is your point that an individual that uses a title 350 years after Mary died is confirmation that Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of fact, that Mary Had No Sex EVER? Sister, I already agreed that CENTURIES after the fact, we begin to see some individuals spreading this view. The first, Tertullian in 220 to deny it. I never challenged that some people believe it. That's not AT ALL the question of this thread, is it?




.

 

[Philothei]

You still must be unaware that there is no dogma of "Jesus Had Lotsa Sibs" (or even "Jesus Had No Sibs") - in any denomination.

ah....really? Cause you know if you never had sex that is bad for childbearing... ehehe...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

ah....really? Cause you know if you never had sex that is bad for childbearing... ehehe...

Yes, IF it could be confirmed that Mary had other children, I suspect most would arbitrate your dogma to be heresy. But while some believe that is MOST LIKELY, there is (to date) no denomination that says this is a dogmatic fact.

No, IF it could be confirmed that Mary had no other children, that's entirely irrelevant because there is no dogma that She ever did and it's irrelevant to the issue of whether she once lovingly shared intimacies - unless you will enter into the discussion the biological proof that every single act of such sharing specifically results in a born child that we can confirm. Thus - IF she had other children is relevant, if she did not is not. But, everyone seems to agree that neither position can be confirmed (although it seems to me the "yes" side has a stronger albeit not solid argument).

Here's what kind of interesting to me. People will share an OPINION - just a personal opinion, not a formal teaching, not a doctrine, not a dogma, not de fide, just a view - that Jesus had siblings by Mary. And you raise the bar very high for them, rejecting a fairly normal and natural and literal interpretation to stress "but it COULD mean something other." People generally yield that. But you come with a DOGMA on a far more personal, private level (sex) - shouting in the boldest, loudest way that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to the world's people and greatest certainty of truth and fact that Mary Had No Sex EVER - and yet you have far, far, far less on your 'side' for that than the "He had sibs" side has (although no one is suggesting that side can confirm dogma here). You seem to be so boldly rejecting a MUCH stronger apologetic for a far less personal and far more relevant issue - while asking all to accept your position (about what is usually a rather private matter) based on a far weaker apologetic for a matter of greatest certainty of truth and fact, a dogmatic fact of greatest importance. Those of us "outsiders" - all us who just don't KNOW how often Mary had sex yet (and aren't even sure we so desperately MUST know precisely that), we see this as very odd. They have the much stronger apologetic (although insuffient for dogma - they agree) for a MUCH lower position (just personal opinion) - and you condemn it as far, far, far too weak. You are shouting DOGMATIC FACT!!!!!! and have much, much, much weaker apologetics (mostly silence.... and some CENTURIES later who believe it but never say why or even attempt to indicate that it's true). It IS stunning to read all this. And I keep asking myself, "WHY is this SO everyone's business?" I don't even know how many times my mother has had sex (frankly, while no prude, I don't want to know!) so WHY is it so very, very, very important - as much as anything could be - how often Mary and Joseph "did it" - if at all?






.

 

[Philothei]

Yes, IF it could be confirmed that Mary had other children, I suspect most would arbitrate your dogma to be heresy.

haha...that just sounds funny ...Come to think about it... 3-4 councils radified it and still the EO and RC are heretics...Cute truly cute

With no proof from the Bible or anyhwere else I think the chances of this are slim

 

[Philothei]

I don't even know how many times my mother has had sex

That is not cute but this is silly ... Who is talking about our families? Your mom my mom the entire woman population is not the Mother of God. Mother of God is ONLY ONE woman who was EVER BLESSSED and virgin as per her title. NOT ANY other woman can claim that.

 

[Philothei]

You seem to be saying things over and over but the fact remains that the chruch prior to the schism did "confess" the EVER virginity all the major prot. fathers also did. Period. That takes us to a 200 years old 'tradition" of not believing in the EV and you want us to believe this standard as right? That is ok....give it more time and who knows what else will be doubted... just saying here...

 

[Philothei]

But, everyone seems to agree that neither position can be confirmed (although it seems to me the "yes" side has a stronger albeit not solid argument).

I thought you had no opinion for either side? Now it seems you agree... this is getting confusing indeed...

 

[Thekla]

Once again, I've pretty much agreed to let YOU decide that. Let's talk about your mother - and see how you'd want us to proceed with "confirmation to the level claimed" in a position there. Then we'll apply the same: Position: "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of fact that at the moment of your mother's death (or undeath, if you prefer), your mother will have had sex 7,654 times." There. Clear and precise. Now, what would YOU accept to confirm/verify that to the level claimed? IF your mother never said anything about how often she has sex? If no one says ANYTHING about how often your mother has sex until 220 years from now - and that's to deny this view? If you can find someone who believes it but says nothing about why it is true and offers nothing to confirm it is true? Would you point to 200 years of NO ONE saying ANYTHING about how often she has sex? 600 years from now, those who spread it all believe it? Perhaps if you'd tell me what YOU'D accept. That might help us establish some common ground.

I cannot just 'make' the "common ground" on my own
Common means shared.

I need to understand your thinking, your understanding, your experience. So I asked your experience of living Lutheran dogma.

And I do not understand when you illustrate your discussions on sex, you always refer to women (never men) as examples: your mother, my mother, me, other females who post here. This demonstrates something from you that I don't understand.

No. "EVER virgin Mary." "PERPETUAL virginity of Mary." What part of that is "vague and selective" to you? Does "perpetual" and "ever" include the idea of ever? Does virgin and virginity include the idea of no sex? Or are you saying that the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" is that She DID have sex?
No, I think my "language" has been abundantly clear. I think everyone over the age of 13 can easily follow and understand it. I think you do, too.

Firstly, you refuse to use the actual definition of "virgin", which extends beyond a physical phenomenon. Yet you repeatedly define it as all about sex (in red, no less).

Your definition of "denomination" completely abrogates the Scriptural conception of Church (and denomination is an aggregate of Churches sharing a name: denomonation).

In order to understand your understanding and experience of "dogma", I have repeatedly asked for a list of Lutheran dogmas to help me get my bearings in order to communicate with you. You haven't answered.

This pattern of conceptual snipping and slipping occurs throughout your posts.


As neither of us is 13, we should bring the communication level above the limit and interests of a 13 year old.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Once again, I've pretty much agreed to let YOU decide that. Let's talk about your mother - and see how you'd want us to proceed with "confirmation to the level claimed" in a position there. Then we'll apply the same: Position: "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of fact that at the moment of your mother's death (or undeath, if you prefer), your mother will have had sex 7,654 times." There. Clear and precise. Now, what would YOU accept to confirm/verify that to the level claimed? IF your mother never said anything about how often she has sex? If no one says ANYTHING about how often your mother has sex until 220 years from now - and that's to deny this view? If you can find someone who believes it but says nothing about why it is true and offers nothing to confirm it is true? Would you point to 200 years of NO ONE saying ANYTHING about how often she has sex? 600 years from now, those who spread it all believe it? Perhaps if you'd tell me what YOU'D accept. That might help us establish some common ground.

I need to understand your thinking, your understanding, your experience. So I asked your experience of living Lutheran dogma.

There is no dogma on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born in Lutheranism. There's only dogma on this in two denominations - the RC and EO.

I do not understand when you illustrate your discussions on sex, you always refer to women (never men) as examples: your mother, my mother, me, other females who post here. This demonstrates something from you that I don't understand.

1. Mary was a woman.

2. In the discussion earlier, of how the loving sharing of marital intimacies, the entire point was about MARY (a woman, you probably agree) and how it would make HER (a woman) less pure, less devoted, less committed to God - even a single case of such. There was no mention of Joseph.

3. I gave you a case for you to discuss, involving the sex life of a woman so as bring some similarity to the case here of an issue involving the sex life of a woman. If it makes you uncomfortable talking about the sex life of a woman (and I can understand that, in spite that that being an issue ENORMOUS to you, not me), then switch it to your father.

you repeatedly define it as all about sex

Quote me where I said, "It's all about sex."

Is it not at al about sex? Does "The Ever Virgin Mary" and "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" not have to do with sex? Does it mean that Mary may have had sex thousands of times but still is the Ever Virgin Mary? The Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

a list of Lutheran dogmas to help me get my bearings in order to communicate with you. You haven't answered.

Again, there is no dogma about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. I can't list them because there are NONE. I realize you REALLY seem to desire to divert the whole discussion away from the issue here and your denomination, but you know the rules of CF and I think you realize what the topic is. It's really not very complicated.







.

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, so if the definition of virgin is not all about sex, what else does it entail?

And if the claim of Mary being "taken" by God has merit, then Mary couldn't have married. The way you reason that Scripture never states she marries Joseph escapes me, but it does plainly state that Joseph never "put her away," which I always inferred meant divorce. Which does seem to imply they married. So if this claim is legit, why wouldn't Joseph have gone through with his "putting her away privily?" It would seem like the right thing to do: "she was betrothed to me, but gave herself to God and is now unfit for me to marry."

Somehow this puts a sad spin on the whole thing for me. I mean when you look at the Jewish understanding of Jephthah in Judges, his vow resulted not in her death by sacrifice, but in her 'perpetual virginity,' which was mourned yearly by all the women of the region, along with Jephthah's daughter.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ok, so if the definition of virgin is not all about sex, what else does it entail?

And if the claim of Mary being "taken" by God has merit, then Mary couldn't have married. The way you reason that Scripture never states she marries Joseph escapes me, but it does plainly state that Joseph never "put her away," which I always inferred meant divorce. Which does seem to imply they married. So if this claim is legit, why wouldn't Joseph have gone through with his "putting her away privily?" It would seem like the right thing to do: "she was betrothed to me, but gave herself to God and is now unfit for me to marry."

Somehow this puts a sad spin on the whole thing for me. I mean when you look at the Jewish understanding of Jephthah in Judges, his vow resulted not in her death by sacrifice, but in her 'perpetual virginity,' which was mourned yearly by all the women of the region, along with Jephthah's daughter.

I also find this line of reasoning to be quite puzzling. In Luke 2:48 Mary specifically asks Jesus why He treated her and His father in such a way by not letting them know where He had been. If she meant that His father was God, then it would be proof positive that God is not omniscient. If, however, His father was another man (by the name of Joseph) who had adopted Him as his son, then there is no problem. In order for that to have been the case Mary would have been married to this other man (Joseph).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok, so if the definition of virgin is not all about sex, what else does it entail?

It might ALSO entail many things. But none of that negates that it also means "no sex."




.

 

[justinangel]

Nice opinion; you've offered NOTHING to remotely indicate that it's true or how it confirms that Mary made a specific VOW to God, the precise content of said vow or 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 idea that God and Mary were married comes lock, stock and barrel from Mormonism. I know of NOTHING in Scripture that remotely so indicates (and thus supports polygamy and that the incarnation was a result of a PHYSICAL act between Mary and God). Nope. NOTHING remotely says any of that.

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."
Luke 1, 35

In ancient Jewish culture the expression "to lay one's power over" (resuth) a woman was a euphemism for marital relations. The word "overshadow" or to "lay one's cloak (tallith) over" was as well. Ruth intended to have marital relations with Boaz when she said: "I am your handmaid. Spread the corner of your cloak 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: "Cover me with your shadow," or "overshadow me". In the words of Mary: "Let it be done to me, for I am your handmaid." Like Ruth, Mary was at first concerned about her chastity, when the angel said to her "You will conceive and bear a son." But she consented to have the child upon learning that the conception would result by supernatural means. Ruth would only lay with Boaz on the condition they were related as bride and groom. Their firstborn son was Obed. 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 children under her wing" (Lk 13:34). Luke presents Mary as God's bride and spouse of the Holy Spirit. A marital relationship, even in a mystical sense, requires the mutual exchange of vows and entering into an exclusive covenantal relationship between partners.

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

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed."
Songs 4, 12

Mary was predestined to have only one child, and that was together with God as his bride.

Nope. nothing of the sort.

She says "doulos." It's the common, everyday, popular word for a servant or employee or slave - it simply means one who is under the authority of another. She is saying that God is the lord here - as He always is for all of us. The word is found HUNDREDS of times in the New Testament, never once with the meaning of "perpetual virgin."

Boaz desired that his servant Ruth become his wife so that she would lay with him. Only then would she for the sake of her chastity and faithfulness to God. Mary would not have consented to conceive and bear Jesus if she intended to consummate her marriage with Joseph. Nor would the angel have come to her if she did. Since Mary had already made a vow of chastity to God and entered into an exclusive covenantal relationship with him, unaware at the time as a young girl living in the temple of what her oath entailed, God sent the angel to her with the good news. Mary responded in a similar vein as Ruth had as Boaz's servant and bride by agreeing to have a child together. Ruth refused to lay with Boaz only as his servant, which would have been immoral in accord with the precepts of the Torah.

Thank you. Where does this confirm that Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content thereof, 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 Marital Relations EVER?

Jesus was the offspring of both Mary and God, who fathered him together with her. If God did not regard Mary to be his bride, the Incarnation would have been a vulgar occurence, to say the least, and an affront to both Mary's dignity and the perfect righteousness of God himself.

I see. So, why is it that we have NOTHING from the beginning on this. Absolutely NOTHING. The first mention of it comes from around 220 AD, and that's to DENY it? If fact, the first two mentions of it you reject as of no significance.

But we do have something of it from the beginning, only it wasn't put down in writing. In earliest times the word of God was mostly spread orally through sermons in Christian gatherings. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary originated as a more private oral tradition in Palestine than were the fundamental and primary Christological traditions of the Church. For soteriological reasons a greater emphasis was put on establishing the truths concerning the person of Christ: his life, death, and resurrection. Writings on Mary began to appear in sequence because of the Church's priorities. Nevertheless, I'm sure there were some written works on Mary that predate the 3rd century, but are extant because of the persecutions and the destruction of Jerusalem. The Romans couldn't quash the spoken word which has continued by way of transmission. Still we have allusions to the ever-virginity of Mary in the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, of the 2nd century, who refer to Mary as "the Virgin".

PAX

 

[razeontherock]

Ok so at least I have some better understanding of where the idea comes from:

Mary would not have consented to conceive and bear Jesus if she intended to consummate her marriage with Joseph. Nor would the angel have come to her if she did. Since Mary had already made a vow of chastity to God and entered into an exclusive covenantal relationship with him, unaware at the time as a young girl living in the temple of what her oath entailed, God sent the angel to her with the good news.

If God did not regard Mary to be his bride, the Incarnation would have been a vulgar occurence, to say the least, and an affront to both Mary's dignity and the perfect righteousness of God himself.

Does RC hold that the Song of Songs refers exclusively to Mary?

 

[Thekla]

Ok, so if the definition of virgin is not all about sex, what else does it entail?

And if the claim of Mary being "taken" by God has merit, then Mary couldn't have married. The way you reason that Scripture never states she marries Joseph escapes me, but it does plainly state that Joseph never "put her away," which I always inferred meant divorce. Which does seem to imply they married. So if this claim is legit, why wouldn't Joseph have gone through with his "putting her away privily?" It would seem like the right thing to do: "she was betrothed to me, but gave herself to God and is now unfit for me to marry."

Somehow this puts a sad spin on the whole thing for me. I mean when you look at the Jewish understanding of Jephthah in Judges, his vow resulted not in her death by sacrifice, but in her 'perpetual virginity,' which was mourned yearly by all the women of the region, along with Jephthah's daughter.

"To take" is the opposite of "put away", of course. One is clearly a rejection, but its opposite does not entail a specific demand beyond not to "put her away". IE, she did need to be cared for. Luke states they were betrothed when they left for Bethlehem - clearly, Joseph took care of her (took her) though they were not married.

As for the issue of Scripture, both Matthew and Luke use the term "mnisteuw", which means "betrothed"; they never use the term "gamew", marry/married in reference to Joseph and Mary (both know the term, as they use it elsewhere).

To this point, it does seem that one must make assumptions that are extra-textual to state that they were married. (And I do not know why this term is mistranslated as espoused/married.)

Maybe you could explain a bit more about why this would be sad for Mary ? Jephthah's daughter's life was cut short - before any sort of fulfillment. Not just virginity, but a life cut off whilst still young. Mary, on the other hand, did have a longer life, and indeed a child.
That it would be somehow unfulfilling to bear the Son of God incarnate ... kinda escapes me

 

[justinangel]

Ok so at least I have some better understanding of where the idea comes from:

Does RC hold that the Song of Songs refers exclusively to Mary?

Not exclusively, but it does in principle. It refers to Mary beyond the primary context of the text as a veiled prophecy in like manner the Suffering Servant songs of Isaiah do in allusion to Christ.

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

PAX

 

[Thekla]

I also find this line of reasoning to be quite puzzling. In Luke 2:48 Mary specifically asks Jesus why He treated her and His father in such a way by not letting them know where He had been. If she meant that His father was God, then it would be proof positive that God is not omniscient. If, however, His father was another man (by the name of Joseph) who had adopted Him as his son, then there is no problem. In order for that to have been the case Mary would have been married to this other man (Joseph).

I think it is Matthew who uses the term "supposed father" for Joseph. As Joseph was involved in the dedication of Christ at the Temple, and His naming, he adopted Him. Thus, it is appropriate for Mary to refer to Joseph as Christ's father - and this, after the flesh (in the world).The social role of the father is one of providing, protection, and guidance.

The betrothal is a legal contract, and through it the promise for protection and providing.

As for a marriage - where is it in Scripture ?

 

[razeontherock]

So 2 people who are betrothed but never married, there is still perpetual duty of care? I have a hard time envisioning this happening in any other case.