Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[cobweb]

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.





.

I meant that it related the story of her being raised in the temple. You don't have to be nasty.

 

[washedagain]

=mrmccormo;58270568]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.

Incorrect. I was taught that this was truth.

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

Incorrect. I am simply asking for evidence. I have not said that my "stance" is "Mary had sex". I am asking for PROOF that Mary remained a perpetual virgin her entire life. I am looking for proof that Mary took a vow of celibacy, I am looking for something more than, "My church says so, so it must be true."

However, what evidence do you have that Mary had sex?

Start a new thread if you want to discuss the evidence that Mary may have had sex. This thread is about her SUPPOSED vow of perpetual chastity and the DOGMA of PV.

I mean, you clearly believe that she didn't remain a virgin. What evidence leads you to make that conclusion?

Clearly? that is not of particular importance to me.I don't know if she remained a virgin or not.(Athough there are scriptures that could be gleened from that suggest otherwise) Truth is, If it is true, that she is a perpetual virgin and is made a DOGMA that one must adhere to with threat of damnation, I would certainly have every reason to enquirer to its validity!

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.

If it is Dogma and you are Catholic, it is a salvific issue.

But here is the thing: when you say "Mary did not remain a virgin",

I have yet to say that in this thread

then you're disagreeing with hundreds of years of early church history.

Is Buddhism wrong? It has been around and has much, much, much more history than the Catholic Church.

You're not simply saying "Mary did not remain a virgin".

You're right... I have not simply said that.

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."

Or they may be beleiving a false teaching... or not... I am asking for proof.

You are holding up your own opinion against hundreds of years of Christianity.

My opinion is that I have not recieved PROOF as of yet that it is true that she is a PV and it must, must, must be believed or fear damnation.

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.

What bold claim??????????????????????????????????????? That I want PROOF that she took a vow of chastity and remained a virgin????? That is a bold claim? Seems more like a question, an inquiry to me.

The burden of proof rests on you and anyone else who says "Mary did not remain a virgin".

I suppose so if that is what I have said in this thread. Good thing I haven't.

... a DOGMA has been declared that Mary was purpetual virgin and a belief by many, that she took a vow of chastity. The burden of proof rests in someone, anyone PROVING that this dogma and this teaching is true.

Your turn.

Thanks!

 

[washedagain]

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.

LOL.... this cracks me up... where do I read any of this?????? In Scripture? WHERE? How do you know that Joseph was twice her age????? WHO told you this and what was their evidence?

What about the stoning part????????? Scripture flat out says that that they were betrothed prior to the visitation of the angel. It is right there in black and white!

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.

 

[washedagain]

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

You have given opinion... not PROOF.

 

[Thekla]

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.

I have stated the same on several occasions.

And there is no indication that her clearly stated intention to not ever know a man was not the result of a vow.

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.

There is - the passages in Luke, if we trust that what Luke wrote was accurate, and we take Mary at her word (ie if we agree that Mary was not lying).

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.

Actually, Josiah, you have never describes what is needed for something to be "proved to the highest level possible".

Please do so; otherwise there can be no response as it cannot be know what you mean by this.

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).

I fully and adamantly disagree with you.
I have given the evidence; you are a Physics major, I was a Literature major. The scan of the text on its own clearly supports that Mary did not ever intend to engage in sexual relations. The greater context of the Holy Scriptures as well as the subtext (here cultural - Midrash, Old Testament, etc.) support what the Lukan passages demonstrate; no intention on Mary's part to ever have marital relations.

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.

I think it is you who have remained at your default position -" we" are not in agreement on your position.










.[/quote]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And there is no indication that her clearly stated intention to not ever know a man was not the result of a vow.

1. Let's say there is no indication that you can prove that Columbus ever ate fish during his historic journey westward, does that prove that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that he ate exactly 14.5 ounces of fish per day during that journey? Do you see the "problem" of your apologetic? What "indications" do you have that Joseph Smith didn't find those plates? If you have nothing of consequence (even to the degree that you have for Mary had no sex ever), is that confirmation to the highest level possible that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that he did?


2. What "clearly stated intention?" How is her intention confirmation of it's fulfullment (even if you have ANYTHING to indicate such a vow, which has not yet been provided)?

There is - the passages in Luke, if we trust that what Luke wrote was accurate, and we take Mary at her word (ie if we agree that Mary was not lying).

Luke says NOTHING of Her status in this regard at the moment of Her death ( or was it undeath - what is the EO teaching there?). It may well be that Luke was written before Her death. Luke says NOTHING about Her sex life after Jesus was born.

The scan of the text on its own clearly supports that Mary did not ever intend to engage in sexual relations.

I completely disagree. There is NOTHING in Luke - in this text or any other, that says Mary had no sex ever - or even that it was her INTENT to have no sex ever. There's NOTHING about Her at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath)?

Yes, AT THE ANNUNCIATION, Mary states that She IS (Present tense) a virgin. I'll state here and now, "I AM a virgin." A true statement. How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that I will remain such throughout and up to the second of my death (or undeath)? It doesn't.


.

 

[Dorothea]

You have given opinion... not PROOF.

I see, so you buy hook, line, and sinker all stuff that is documented in US history, but you don't bother to believe the Church's history.

I don't even know how you read the Bible without proper historical background and understanding the traditions of the time. It seems it would be awfully difficult and incomplete.

Scriptural proof was given by Thekla on countless occasions through Luke and the OT she talked about. Apparently that isn't good enough.

So, anyhow, you don't believe history when it comes to Church, but I'm betting you believe other history without any problem. Again, I think it's your being brought up to be anti-Catholic because you seem to have brought that out to mr in your response to him, and bunch us Orthodox up with the Catholics, as if we're the same. Again, some research on our beliefs and our whole holistic, ascetic, and spiritual mindset and doctrines/dogmas would see that we are different, but we do share the belief in Mary because both Churches actually preserve and value the history of the Church.

Again, it's not good enough because you'd have to agree with a Catholic on something. Heaven forbid!

 

[Thekla]

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.

Do you have dogmatic beliefs ?

What is your standard for dogma ?

We have provided linguistic, Biblical (including the use of "types"), cultural and historical support for our belief on this matter.

The result of the textual analysis of the Lukan passages is clear.

 

[Thekla]

You have given opinion... not PROOF.

Textual analysis is not opinion.

 

[Thekla]

1. Let's say there is no indication that you can prove that Columbus ever ate fish during his historic journey westward, does that prove that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that he ate exactly 14.5 ounces of fish per day during that journey? Do you see the "problem" of your apologetic? What "indications" do you have that Joseph Smith didn't find those plates? If you have nothing of consequence (even to the degree that you have for Mary had no sex ever), is that confirmation to the highest level possible that it is a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that he did?

Her stated intention may or may not have been a vow.

Can you prove that Mary never made a vow ?

2. What "clearly stated intention?" How is her intention confirmation of it's fulfullment (even if you have ANYTHING to indicate such a vow, which has not yet been provided)?

The analysis has been given repeatedly.

Luke says NOTHING of Her status in this regard at the moment of Her death ( or was it undeath - what is the EO teaching there?). It may well be that Luke was written before Her death. Luke says NOTHING about Her sex life after Jesus was born.

Why do you doubt Mary's word ?

I completely disagree. There is NOTHING in Luke - in this text or any other, that says Mary had no sex ever - or even that it was her INTENT to have no sex ever. There's NOTHING about Her at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath)?

So you think she changed her mind ?

Yes, AT THE ANNUNCIATION, Mary states that She IS (Present tense) a virgin. I'll state here and now, "I AM a virgin." A true statement. How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that I will remain such throughout and up to the second of my death (or undeath)? It doesn't.

You are mistaking the English present tense for the Hellenistic Greek present tense.

You have also disregarded the actual order of the recorded exchange with Gabriel.

It seems you read the text from your opinion, instead of engaging in a close analysis.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Can you prove that Mary never made a vow ?

Since I have no position (much less DOGMA), I don't need to.

Can you prove that there are not 6.1 billion cute furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor? IF not, does that confirmed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that there is?

The analysis has been given repeatedly.

I know. However creative. But so far, nothing to indicate that She made a vow, what was the content of said vow, and that at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath, what is the EO view there?) She was a virgin; that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Why do you doubt Mary's word ?

I don't. Where did she say, "I had no sex ever?" Or even "It is my intention to have no sex ever?" We both know, She didn't.

You have also disregarded the actual order of the recorded exchange with Gabriel.

No.


I'm simply noting what was said and not said.

And, yes, I'm viewing it via the ancient Catholic (is it also EO?) Tradition that embraces that the Annunciation and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY. If this tradition is true, then Mary's reply in the present tense makes perfect sense. In any case, my saying "I am a virgin" is not confirmation that I'm a perpetual virgin - that at the moment of my death (or undeath), I WILL BE a virgin. I think you know that.







.

 

[washedagain]

=Dorothea;58272619]I see, so you buy hook, line, and sinker all stuff that is documented in US history, but you don't bother to believe the Church's history.

If someone in the year 2009 came out and said that George Washington liked to wear his wife's clothing, I would find that suspect as it is reported over 200 years later without evidence. Same with many of of the RCF's.

I don't even know how you read the Bible without proper historical background and understanding the traditions of the time. It seems it would be awfully difficult and incomplete.

And no one is asking you to.

Scriptural proof was given by Thekla on countless occasions through Luke and the OT she talked about. Apparently that isn't good enough.

Yes, that is correct as there in nothing in Luke that suggests that Mary took a vow of celibacy nor that she is exclaiming perpetual virginity.

So, anyhow, you don't believe history when it comes to Church, but I'm betting you believe other history without any problem.

History is one thing... someone proclaiming something centuries later without evidence is suspect.

Again, I think it's your being brought up to be anti-Catholic because you seem to have brought that out to mr in your response to him, and bunch us Orthodox up with the Catholics, as if we're the same.

I was brought up Catholic.

Again, some research on our beliefs and our whole holistic, ascetic, and spiritual mindset and doctrines/dogmas would see that we are different,

Yes, I know that you are.

but we do share the belief in Mary because both Churches actually preserve and value the history of the Church.

So?

Again, it's not good enough because you'd have to agree with a Catholic on something. Heaven forbid!

I have no problem agreeing with a Catholic if they can PROVE their case... in this case, you haven't.

 

[washedagain]

=Thekla;58272883]Do you have dogmatic beliefs ?

Of course... it is called the bible.

What is your standard for dogma ?

God's word.

We have provided linguistic, Biblical (including the use of "types"), cultural and historical support for our belief on this matter.

No you haven't... you have not proven that Mary ever made a vow of celebacy nor have you proven that she is ever virgin.

The result of the textual analysis of the Lukan passages is clear.

No it's not. There is nothing indicated in her response that she was planing to NEVER have sex.

 

[washedagain]

Textual analysis is not opinion.

LOL...... textual analysis doesn't say that she made a vow to be an ever virgin nor does it say that she never had sex.

 

[washedagain]

Since I have no position (much less DOGMA), I don't need to.

Can you prove that there are not 6.1 billion cute furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor? IF not, does that confirmed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that there is?








I know. However creative. But so far, nothing to indicate that She made a vow, what was the content of said vow, and that at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath, what is the EO view there?) She was a virgin; that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.







I don't. Where did she say, "I had no sex ever?" Or even "It is my intention to have no sex ever?" We both know, She didn't.








No.


I'm simply noting what was said and not said.

And, yes, I'm viewing it via the ancient Catholic (is it also EO?) Tradition that embraces that the Annunciation and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY. If this tradition is true, then Mary's reply in the present tense makes perfect sense. In any case, my saying "I am a virgin" is not confirmation that I'm a perpetual virgin - that at the moment of my death (or undeath), I WILL BE a virgin. I think you know that.







.

Amen and amen.

 

[Thekla]

Since I have no position (much less DOGMA), I don't need to.

This is what I actually posted:

Her stated intention may or may not have been a vow.

Can you prove that Mary never made a vow ?

Your personal opinion on the matter is not relevant; you claim the vow cannot be proven. I asked if you can prove the obverse; I did not ask for your opinion.

Can you prove that there are not 6.1 billion cute furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor? IF not, does that confirmed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that there is?

You have never described your standard for confirming dogma.
How can the "required" evidence be given when what is "required" is unknown ? (Rather Kafka-esque ...)

I know. However creative. But so far, nothing to indicate that She made a vow, what was the content of said vow, and that at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath, what is the EO view there?) She was a virgin; that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Actually, text analysis is not a matter of creativity.
It requires a pointed investigation of all aspects of the language used by the writer.
It may require a certain degree of flexibility of thought, as one must consider several aspects singly and also in relation to the whole: linguistic ground, grammar, word choice (what is vs. what is not chosen by the author), context (immediate and broader), ordinal flow, intended audience, rhetorical device/s, style (author's voice), author's corpus, subtext, historical period, and logic - and this is a partial list.

Your opinion on the passages in question has missed several factors, thus falling short of analysis.

I don't. Where did she say, "I had no sex ever?" Or even "It is my intention to have no sex ever?" We both know, She didn't.

The present is not a tense of time, but state -- you have mistaken "present tense" for the English present tense. They are not the same. Her statement is further supported by the ordinal flow of the passages as concepts are revealed one at a time (as is typical in conversations where each speaker's statements are brief) and she responds to each.

No.
I'm simply noting what was said and not said.

Actually, perhaps you are not accustomed to really deeply reading and analyzing text, as your opinion does not demonstrate an understanding of the logical progression of the conversation.

And, yes, I'm viewing it via the ancient Catholic (is it also EO?) Tradition that embraces that the Annunciation and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY. If this tradition is true, then Mary's reply in the present tense makes perfect sense. In any case, my saying "I am a virgin" is not confirmation that I'm a perpetual virgin - that at the moment of my death (or undeath), I WILL BE a virgin. I think you know that.

Present tense is not a time, but a statement of what is ongoing.
Even in the English understanding of present tense, your opinion demonstrates a failure to read the conversation as a progressive, incremental revealing of information in "real time".

Here it is, in English, with the numbers corresponding to the order of information revealed in "real time" and the English tenses of the statements described in parenthesis:

1. Gabriel - " ...you will conceive ..." (future time)

2.Mary - "I do not know ..." (English present time, while betrothed to be married at a future time)

3.Gabriel - "... will conceive by the Holy Spirit ..." (future time)

You will note that in order for your opinion to be correct, Mary must know the information given in 3. at the time of 1.
IE, your opinion relies on Mary knowing what Gabriel says (3) before he says it (at 1) in order for her response (2) to make sense.

Your opinion is not supported by an analysis of the Greek text (understandable), but is also not supported by the English translation.

 

[Thekla]

LOL...... textual analysis doesn't say that she made a vow to be an ever virgin nor does it say that she never had sex.

You are correct; it does not demonstrate a vow.
One may see that a vow is implied, or not.

It does demonstrate that she did not intend to engage in sexual relations in marriage.

Here then, one must assume that Mary was or was not reliable in her statements. I think she was reliable in her statements. Firstly, I have no reason to doubt what she said of her own intention; secondly, she is known to have heard and kept the word of God, resulting in the birth of Jesus Christ.

 

[Dorothea]

Do you have dogmatic beliefs ?

What is your standard for dogma ?

We have provided linguistic, Biblical (including the use of "types"), cultural and historical support for our belief on this matter.

The result of the textual analysis of the Lukan passages is clear.

Yep, but they keep saying the same thing over and over, ignoring the support we give them. Blinders on, I say.

 

[washedagain]

=Thekla;58274192]You are correct; it does not demonstrate a vow.
One may see that a vow is implied, or not.

Yes that is correct.

It does demonstrate that she did not intend to engage in sexual relations in marriage.

Where????????????????????????????? Simply because at that moment she had not been with a man?

Here then, one must assume that Mary was or was not reliable in her statements.

Assumptions are dangerous and you know what they say about them

I think she was reliable in her statements.

You think???????? Really??????

Firstly, I have no reason to doubt what she said of her own intention;

I don't doubt here either as she is good Jewish girl... God would not have chosen a hussy.

secondly, she is known to have heard and kept the word of God, resulting in the birth of Jesus Christ.

Of course we know that she kept herself because scripture tells us that Joseph knew her NOT till Jesus was born.... She was a virgin upon Jesus' birth.

 

[washedagain]

Yep, but they keep saying the same thing over and over, ignoring the support we give them. Blinders on, I say.

I answered all those questions.