Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. (Exodus 3)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If you insist on evidence for a vow - as I have said, there is no Biblical evidence that I know of for any vow of Mary.


However, despite the lack of explicit evidence, it cannot be concluded that:
1. Mary never made such a vow
2. Mary did not remain a virgin

In fact, the Lukan passages do state that she had no intention of engaging in conjugal relations. Vow or no vow.

Thank you (FINALLY) for the honesty.


1. There is NO substantiation for the point here that Mary made a vow and the exact content of said vow. Nothing.


2. There is NO substantiation for it being a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Nothing.





Your point is ENTIRELY irrelevant. Your apologetic that ("it can't be proved to the highest level possible that She ever DID have sex!") is not permitted in any debate and is entirely irrelevant. It's also an apologetic YOU don't accept thus cannot ask others to accept an apologetic you reject. Can you prove that Joseph Smith didn't find those plates? Can you prove that Mary didn't have other children? Can you prove that Mary was not 8 feet tall, had pink hair, lived almost entirely on fish tacos? I'm SURE you know that your whole argument here is baseless and is one YOU reject - thus, we must too.





But you are very wrong on one point:

Luke does NOT state that Mary had no INTENTION to EVER have sex. Not that intention = dogmatic evidence, but Luke says NOTHING about Her intention (and I think you know that).



So, we're right back to "square one." There are two (maybe 3) denominations out of the 50,000+ some Catholics insist exist that insist that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER - and yet they have nothing to support it other than that those centuries later who said it was said that it was true. Nothing about why the frequency of sex among couples is a matter of highest importance, nothing to document that Mary never once had sex. Nothing. Then why is this dogma? Why is it taught? Does truth not matter vis-a-vis the most esteemed and revered human in history? Does truth not matter when spreading such a very personal (and potentially embarrassing and hurtful) issue about a person? Does truth not matter, even in DOGMA? I think those are importance questions but I KNOW they won't be addressed or considered.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

If God willed her to be EV it is just as nobody's business to say the opposite...

1. ALL conditional statements, if true, are true. What's your point? Is it a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Joseph Smith found those plates and founded Christ's Church here in the Americas if I type, "IF God willed Joe to find those plates and found His church, it is just nobody's business to say the opposite?"


2. Odd - and interesting - you raise the issue of whether this is "nobody's business." Because, of course, that's part of the issue here. It is stated this issue about how often this couple shared loving marital intimacies is a matter of highest importance to all to know - to the highest level possible, OUR business. Friend, I don't know how often my mother has had and will have sex up to and include the moment of her death (or undeath). I just don't know. And, while I'm no prude, to be honest (and blunt), I don't know why it is my business - much less EVERYONE'S business to the very highest level possible. I don't know how often you will have sex during your lifetime or your mother, and frankly, I consider that even LESS my business - not a matter of HIGHEST importance for everyone to know. But I will say this: If you were to shout to all the world, as a matter of highest importance for all 7 billion people to know and as a greatest certainty possible, that my mother will have sex exactly 421 times during her lifetime, ONE of my questions (as her son) to you would be: why is it anyone's business? You DO raise an interesting issue - and one at the heart of this discussion. Not only has NOTHING been presented to show that it's true (much less to the greatest certainty possible) but also NOTHING to show why this is everyone's business (much less to the highest level possible).



IF we were talking about Bill Gates, I wouldn't be so concerned. But this is my Mother. This is the Mother of my Lord. This is the most beloved and revered person in history. IMO, truth should matter even MORE with Her than with you, your mother or Bill Gates. Not less (or not at all). What is none of our business with you is even less our business with Our Lady.









.

 

[Dorothea]

No, not at all.... Jewish tradition is that a man and woman come together and become one.... are fruitful and multiply.


What is your point?

There's also Jewish tradition at that time that if a woman is found to be pregnant without a husband, that she is stoned to death.

 

[Dorothea]

And what does that have to do with Mary?

Show me the evidence that Mary made a vow of celibacy?

Let's see.....Anna is Mary's mother. Anna brought her child up in the Temple. Mary practically lived there. There was never anything that indicated Mary was going to be married reading Anna, Joachim and Mary's early history.

Do you understand that many nuns and monks know they are going to be so before they even reach their mid teens?

 

[Dorothea]

I think the rest of us are still waiting for evidence that Mary had children, or that she had sex at all.

I mean, if evidence is so important to you...

Exactly. I notice this a lot in these forums. We are on the defensive more than 90% of the time because some people don't agree with us. But they don't have anything to back up their beliefs.

 

[Dorothea]

And from Christ, born of Mary, the Seed promised of Abraham, the Seed of the woman promised in Genesis, there is a great multiplication of fruit ...

One must recognize that those who were called by God for a particular purpose often had few if any children.

Consider the prophets.

Moses, after his deep encounter with God, became celibate.

Abraham, whose son Isaac was a typos of Christ (sacrifice) was of Abraham's two sons the only "legitimate" son (son a free woman).

The preferred son to God in families with multiple children was the younger son, not the eldest
(Jacob, Joseph, David ...).

Yes, history and understanding is helpful.

So with all of this, what do others who disagree have to back up their point? Can they bring out history, Jewish tradition that contradicts it? Anything?

 

[mrmccormo]

Skip the vow. Even with the "lack" of a vow of chastity, that does not "prove" the inverse (that Mary DID have sex). I'm very eager to hear some compelling evidence proving Mary had sex. Really. Let's hear it.

As of right now, I have my "History of the Christian Church" Vol. 1, 2, and 3 opened up on my coffee table and all I'm seeing is that the early church unanimously (in every corner of Christianity, from Jerusalem to Rome) held firm to the belief that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. I'm also seeing that the first time the virginity of Mary was challenged in any major way from within the church was...oh...what's this? 1,500 years after the death of Christ during the days of Martin Luther? Huh. Fancy that.

 

[washedagain]

I think the rest of us are still waiting for evidence that Mary had children, or that she had sex at all.

I mean, if evidence is so important to you...

This is what is important.... truth. Your church says they have it... so much so that your church has made a dogma out of Mary's virginity and one MUST believe it or run the risk of being damned.

Seems pretty darn serious to me.

Now, can you produce the evidence that she never had sex? It is YOUR dogma to prove, not mine. Frankly, I could care less about Mary's sex life... but I also don't want to risk being damned either....

I just want truth. Give it to me.

 

[washedagain]

Exactly. I notice this a lot in these forums. We are on the defensive more than 90% of the time because some people don't agree with us. But they don't have anything to back up their beliefs.

It is your job to defend your Dogma's is it not? If you didn't have such dogma's, no one would be challenging you. It isn't about disagreements... it is about producing evidence.

My belief? I could care less if Mary had sex or not. It doesn't effect my salvation in the least. The biblical norm is for a man and woman to come together and become one, to multiply if physically possible.

What I do care about is truth. If you got it, show it. But alas, you can't.

 

[washedagain]

Let's see.....Anna is Mary's mother. Anna brought her child up in the Temple. Mary practically lived there. There was never anything that indicated Mary was going to be married reading Anna, Joachim and Mary's early history.

Do you understand that many nuns and monks know they are going to be so before they even reach their mid teens?

Proof please that Mary was brought up in the temple. Proof that she practically lived there. I guess your source is wrong because Holy Scriptures do tell us that Mary intended to be married..



26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Yes, I understand that Catholic boys and girls want to be nuns and monks.... I was one of those kids.

 

[washedagain]

There's also Jewish tradition at that time that if a woman is found to be pregnant without a husband, that she is stoned to death.

Yes.

 

[mrmccormo]

This is what is important.... truth. Your church says they have it... so much so that your church has made a dogma out of Mary's virginity and one MUST believe it or run the risk of being damned.

Seems pretty darn serious to me.

Now, can you produce the evidence that she never had sex? It is YOUR dogma to prove, not mine. Frankly, I could care less about Mary's sex life... but I also don't want to risk being damned either....

I just want truth. Give it to me.

Actually, sir, I currently attend a WELS Lutheran church with my wife and I was raised in a non-denominational Evangelical church. So I can assure you that the virginity of Mary was never a part of my dotrine. I was taught - as I'm sure you were - that it was a silly doctrine.

However, as a Christian who is trying to humble himself before our God, I make it a point to challenge doctrines that I once held as true. It's...refreshing to admit you're wrong. You hold the stance "Mary had sex", which obviously makes the stance "Mary remained a virgin" false in your eyes. However, what evidence do you have that Mary had sex? I mean, you clearly believe that she didn't remain a virgin. What evidence leads you to make that conclusion?

I'm not sure if believing in Mary's virginity is a salvific issue. And I don't know if those who teach Mary's virginity (like the Catholics and Orthodox) view it as a salvific issue, either.

But here is the thing: when you say "Mary did not remain a virgin", then you're disagreeing with hundreds of years of early church history. You're not simply saying "Mary did not remain a virgin". You're also saying "...and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who were filled with the same Holy Spirit I am, who I am going to see in Heaven for hundreds of years were believing the wrong thing." You are holding up your own opinion against hundreds of years of Christianity.

Now, I'm not saying "majority rules", but I think if you are going to make such a bold claim that flies in the face of hundreds of years of Christian history, you might want to quantify your position. The burden of proof rests on you and anyone else who says "Mary did not remain a virgin".

Your turn.

 

[cobweb]

The story is found in the Protoevangelion of James. That dates no later than 2nd cent AD.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The story is found in the Protoevangelion of James. That dates no later than 2nd cent AD.

The nonauthoritative, noncanonical book of the Protoevangelion of James says NOTHING about how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born (if at all). It does not confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.





.

 

[Dorothea]

It is your job to defend your Dogma's is it not? If you didn't have such dogma's, no one would be challenging you. It isn't about disagreements... it is about producing evidence.

My belief? I could care less if Mary had sex or not. It doesn't effect my salvation in the least. The biblical norm is for a man and woman to come together and become one, to multiply if physically possible.

What I do care about is truth. If you got it, show it. But alas, you can't.

We already have ad nauseum. You choose not believe it as Truth.

 

[Dorothea]

Proof please that Mary was brought up in the temple. Proof that she practically lived there. I guess your source is wrong because Holy Scriptures do tell us that Mary intended to be married..



26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Yes, I understand that Catholic boys and girls want to be nuns and monks.... I was one of those kids.

Again, did you read Mary's life and Anna's before the "pledge"? Did you think why she and Joseph (who was nearly twice her age) were betrothed? Think backt to the "stoning" part of the Jewish tradition at that time. That'll help you out.

 

[Dorothea]

Yes.

Ok.....waiting for you to put it together...

 

[Dorothea]

Actually, sir, I currently attend a WELS Lutheran church with my wife and I was raised in a non-denominational Evangelical church. So I can assure you that the virginity of Mary was never a part of my dotrine. I was taught - as I'm sure you were - that it was a silly doctrine.

However, as a Christian who is trying to humble himself before our God, I make it a point to challenge doctrines that I once held as true. It's...refreshing to admit you're wrong. You hold the stance "Mary had sex", which obviously makes the stance "Mary remained a virgin" false in your eyes. However, what evidence do you have that Mary had sex? I mean, you clearly believe that she didn't remain a virgin. What evidence leads you to make that conclusion?

I'm not sure if believing in Mary's virginity is a salvific issue. And I don't know if those who teach Mary's virginity (like the Catholics and Orthodox) view it as a salvific issue, either.

But here is the thing: when you say "Mary did not remain a virgin", then you're disagreeing with hundreds of years of early church history. You're not simply saying "Mary did not remain a virgin". You're also saying "...and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who were filled with the same Holy Spirit I am, who I am going to see in Heaven for hundreds of years were believing the wrong thing." You are holding up your own opinion against hundreds of years of Christianity.

Now, I'm not saying "majority rules", but I think if you are going to make such a bold claim that flies in the face of hundreds of years of Christian history, you might want to quantify your position. The burden of proof rests on you and anyone else who says "Mary did not remain a virgin".

Your turn.

Just an FYI, Mary's ever-virginity is a dogma in the EO because it's tied to Christ's Two Natures:

Two dogmas concerning the Mother of God are bound up, in closest fashion, with the dogma of God the Words becoming man. They are: a) Her Ever-virginity, and b) Her name of Theotokos. They procede immediately from the dogma of the unity of the Hypostasis of the Lord from the moment of His Incarnation-the Divine Hypostasis.

Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Skip the vow. I'm very eager to hear some compelling evidence proving Mary had sex. Really. Let's hear it.

Compelling evidence to the contrary is entirely irrelevant to evidence in support. For example, given me "compelling evidence" that Mary was NOT 6 feet tall. Post all the compelling evidence you have to the contrary. Now, does that document that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary was 5 foot, 3 and one-half inches tall? Nope. Give me your "compelling evidence" that there is no life on the Moon of Endor. Post all your "compelling evidence." Does that document that ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that there are 6 billion cute furry brown creatures living there? Nope.

I'm also seeing that the first time the virginity of Mary was challenged in any major way from within the church was...oh...what's this? 1,500 years after the death of Christ during the days of Martin Luther? Huh. Fancy that.

Could you give me the first quote when ANYONE (doesn't matter if such was a heretic or a pagan) who states that he/she at least is of the personal opinion at least that Mary Had No Sex EVER. If I gave you a quote even earlier and by even more that expresses Gnosticism, would that make Gnosticism dogma?







.