Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Dorothea]

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.

Again, blinders. It was shown. You don't want to see it.

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

Um, that would be your argument and side of the issue, not ours. It's always been there since the beginning. You share a belief that is quite modern since some time after the Reformation.

I was brought up Catholic.

Ah, this explains a lot.

 

[Thekla]

Of course... it is called the bible.

Then why do you doubt what Luke recorded ?

God's word.

In your view, did God inspire Luke to write the Gospel, and did God inspire Luke to be accurate ?

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.

As I have stated several times in posts directly in response to your own, I have not claimed to have offered proof of a vow.

I have provided information on the Lukan passages in Greek, and these demonstrate that it was Mary's intention to continue her life as virgin.

In fact, she does not assent to Gabriel's announcement until after the method of conception as overshadowing - not through Joseph - is described by Gabriel. This does indicate a vow or an active agency of intention by Mary to remain a virgin/dedicated to God (set aside).
Indeed, if Gabriel is truly a messenger from God ("...what manner of greeting is this ..." she asks), then such a dedication or vow would be known to a messenger from God.

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

I have provided a pointed analysis of the English: it is demonstrated in the English and much more clearly in the Greek.

 

[washedagain]

=Dorothea;58274259]Again, blinders. It was shown. You don't want to see it.

Opinion

Um, that would be your argument and side of the issue, not ours. It's always been there since the beginning. You share a belief that is quite modern since some time after the Reformation.

Show that it was a belief from the time of the apostles?


Ah, this explains a lot.[/quote]

Me being Catholic explains a lot?

 

[Dorothea]

This is what I actually posted:


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.

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 ...)





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.





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.


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.


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.

 

[Dorothea]

I answered all those questions.

you have ignored the scriptural support given to you. Thekla is a literature major and spend a long time investigating and researching Mary's virginity, even though she had become Orthodox, she wanted to do her own research, and she delved deep. Seeing how she understands the Greek language and what is present and future tenses, and if you look at her broken down example in Luke, it does tell you that Mary had no intention of having a sexual relationship with Joseph or any other man.

 

[washedagain]

=Thekla;58274263]Then why do you doubt what Luke recorded ?

I don't.

In your view, did God inspire Luke to write the Gospel, and did God inspire Luke to be accurate ?

But of course.

As I have stated several times in posts directly in response to your own, I have not claimed to have offered proof of a vow.

Yes, I know. It cannot be substantiated so I don't know why anyone would use scripture to support it.

I have provided information on the Lukan passages in Greek, and these demonstrate that it was Mary's intention to continue her life as virgin.

But it doesn't DEMONSTRATE your premise that she intended to be a virgin forever.

In fact, she does not assent to Gabriel's announcement until after the method of conception as overshadowing - not through Joseph - is described by Gabriel. This does indicate a vow or an active agency of intention by Mary to remain a virgin/dedicated to God (set aside).

No it doesn't. There is nothing there that suggests that she intended to remain a virgin forever.... ANYWHERE.

Indeed, if Gabriel is truly a messenger from God ("...what manner of greeting is this ..." she asks), then such a dedication or vow would be known to a messenger from God.

What?????? Of course it was a messenger from God. That doesn't make a wit about her perpetual virginity. Let me know next time you are visited by an angel and tell me you are not totally mind BOGGLED!

I have provided a pointed analysis of the English: it is demonstrated in the English and much more clearly in the Greek.

All the scriptures have demonstrated is that Mary is confused because she has yet to be with a man and conceived within the same 24 hour period... not YEARS later after she is wed.

 

[Thekla]

Yes that is correct.


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

here, repeated from a previous post:

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.

Assumptions are dangerous and you know what they say about them

I am not making assumptions.

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

Yes.

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

He did ask the Prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute.

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.

Yes, and her intention to remain chaste for life is also demonstrated.

 

[Dorothea]

Opinion

Actually more like observation of your posts here.

Show that it was a belief from the time of the apostles?

Um, the Protoevangelium of James for one. The Ecumenical Councils that talked about her ever-virginity which is tied into the Incarnation of Christ and His two natures. And of course what was recorded in Luke's Gospel.

You can say "show me her ever-virginity" until we are all blue in the face. We've given you our scriptural, historical, and traditional support. You don't want it, so quit asking for it.

 

[washedagain]

you have ignored the scriptural support given to you. Thekla is a literature major and spend a long time investigating and researching Mary's virginity, even though she had become Orthodox, she wanted to do her own research, and she delved deep. Seeing how she understands the Greek language and what is present and future tenses, and if you look at her broken down example in Luke, it does tell you that Mary had no intention of having a sexual relationship with Joseph or any other man.

LOL.... how much can you research Mary's virginity? By examining writings hundreds of years later?????? Really? I understand the Greek language translated just fine. There is nothing there to support perpetual virginity or any vow.

There is NOTHING to indicate that Mary had made a vow of chastity and that she was going to marry and never have sex... NOTHING.

You just saying so doesn't cut it.

 

[washedagain]

Actually more like observation of your posts here.



Um, the Protoevangelium of James for one. The Ecumenical Councils that talked about her ever-virginity which is tied into the Incarnation of Christ and His two natures.

A spurious writing claimed by your own church. LOL..... that is why it is not considered scripture even by your own.

 

[washedagain]

here, repeated from a previous post:

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.



I am not making assumptions.



Yes.



He did ask the Prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute.



Yes, and her intention to remain chaste for life is also demonstrated.

Gasp... and she was with child within 48 hours! Really..... she knew the intent.

You have yet to demonstrate that she had intentions of remaining a perpetual virgin... she was engaged to be married... whoops... now we slip back into the vow that cannot be proven!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

you claim the vow cannot be proven.

No, I posted that it IS not proven. OTHERS have said that it's a dogmatic fact - they've just refused to give ANY evidence whatsoever.

I asked if you can prove the obverse

1. A negative cannot be proven.

2. You seem to keep forgetting who has the dogma. YOU are the one insisting that it's a matter of highest importance to all ( this matter of how often couples have sex - at least one certain couple) and a matter of highest certainty of Truth specifically that Mary Had No Sex EVER. There is no denomination on the planet that has a dogma of Mary Had Lotsa Sex. Thus, there is no denomination that has anything to prove or substantiate about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - just yours (and the RCC).

It may require a certain degree of flexibility of thought


Actually, perhaps you are not accustomed to really deeply reading and analyzing text

1. Yes, YOU have a "deep analysis" of a particular singular verse, an interpretation. Yes, your analysis and interpretation agree with your analysis and interpretation. And yes, if true - that makes this DOGMA possible. However, what is obvious to all (but I'm not sure to you) is that THE VERSE doesn't say that Mary Had No Sex Ever. You do. It's YOUR "really deeping" reading, YOUR "analyzing" - the text says no such thing. YOU do.


2. While your interpretation (while amazingly stretched) may be POSSIBLE, that doesn't make it correct. IMO, the ancient Catholic Tradition (which obviously you disagree with) perhaps flowing from this verse, causes this to make better sense - that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened ON THE SAME DAY, thus making the exchange quite natural and understandable. But even if you are right and the Catholic Tradition is wrong, the MOST (and boy, is it every an amazing stretch) is that Mary is confused. This verse says NOTHING about Mary's death (or undeath - which is it in the view of the EO?) or her status at that point vis-a-vis sex. It's not there. At ALL. You are simply IMPOSING a view, you are not practicing "deep analysis" you are simply practicing pure eisegsis. Reading what you posted, you actually seem to be admitting that. YOU are saying it, the text isn't. YOU are confirming YOUR view, the text isn't. You are doing radical eisegesis - that's all.






.

 

[Dorothea]

A spurious writing claimed by your own church. LOL..... that is why it is not considered scripture even by your own.

again. Same ol', same ol'. You don't really care from your posts whether people show you scriptural, historical, and traditional support of this view, because we gave it, and you continue to ignore it and give the same stale responses. We're not going to continue to play this game.

 

[washedagain]

again. Same ol', same ol'. You don't really care from your posts whether people show you scriptural, historical, and traditional support of this view, because we gave it, and you continue to ignore it and give the same stale responses. We're not going to continue to play this game.

It is NOT a game... This is about TRUTH. You have a dogma... PROVE it.

Obviously you can't.

 

[Thekla]

Gasp... and she was with child within 48 hours! Really..... she knew the intent.

Please demonstrate that she did know, as your claim is not supported by what is written in the Gospel of Luke.

You have yet to demonstrate that she had intentions of remaining a perpetual virgin... she was engaged to be married... whoops... now we slip back into the vow that cannot be proven!

Perpetual means without change to the present condition.

I have demonstrated that clearly in the Greek, but also (though less clearly in English) to remain a virgin (here condition, or state) is her intention.

I have presented the evidence.

If you are willing, please present your textual analysis to support your opinion. Please also, if you are willing, refer to the analysis I have presented with factual supported counterclaim.

Until then,

Irini pasi +

 

[Dorothea]

It is NOT a game... This is about TRUTH. You have a dogma... PROVE it.

Obviously you can't.

Obviously we can. You decided not to believe it through scripture, history, and Jewish tradition.

So, it's been proven. You don't like what's been brought forth through the sources we gave. Ah well. We don't have a problem with your denying what has always been taught. It seems you do. You'll have to work that out with yourself. I am done playing the broken record, ignoring what's been given over and over again. Find somebody else to harp on.

 

[Thekla]

No, I posted that it IS not proven. OTHERS have said that it's a dogmatic fact - they've just refused to give ANY evidence whatsoever.






1. A negative cannot be proven.

2. You seem to keep forgetting who has the dogma. YOU are the one insisting that it's a matter of highest importance to all ( this matter of how often couples have sex - at least one certain couple) and a matter of highest certainty of Truth specifically that Mary Had No Sex EVER. There is no denomination on the planet that has a dogma of Mary Had Lotsa Sex. Thus, there is no denomination that has anything to prove or substantiate about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - just yours (and the RCC).










1. Yes, YOU have a "deep analysis" of a particular singular verse, an interpretation. Yes, your analysis and interpretation agree with your analysis and interpretation. And yes, if true - that makes this DOGMA possible. However, what is obvious to all (but I'm not sure to you) is that THE VERSE doesn't say that Mary Had No Sex Ever. You do. It's YOUR "really deeping" reading, YOUR "analyzing" - the text says no such thing. YOU do.


2. While your interpretation (while amazingly stretched) may be POSSIBLE, that doesn't make it correct. IMO, the ancient Catholic Tradition (which obviously you disagree with) perhaps flowing from this verse, causes this to make better sense - that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened ON THE SAME DAY, thus making the exchange quite natural and understandable. But even if you are right and the Catholic Tradition is wrong, the MOST (and boy, is it every an amazing stretch) is that Mary is confused. This verse says NOTHING about Mary's death (or undeath - which is it in the view of the EO?) or her status at that point vis-a-vis sex. It's not there. At ALL. You are simply IMPOSING a view, you are not practicing "deep analysis" you are simply practicing pure eisegsis. Reading what you posted, you actually seem to be admitting that. YOU are saying it, the text isn't. YOU are confirming YOUR view, the text isn't. You are doing radical eisegesis - that's all.






.

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.



Please respond with a counterclaim to each point I have iterated above.

Thank-you, Josiah !

Til then,

Doxa to Theo +

 

[LOCO]

again. Same ol', same ol'. You don't really care from your posts whether people show you scriptural, historical, and traditional support of this view, because we gave it, and you continue to ignore it and give the same stale responses. We're not going to continue to play this game.

 

[washedagain]

=Thekla;58274361]Please demonstrate that she did know, as your claim is not supported by what is written in the Gospel of Luke.

I don't have to. there is nothing in her repsonse that suggest perpetualness.

Perpetual means without change to the present condition.

Yea, I know... something that is not addressed.

I have demonstrated that clearly in the Greek, but also (though less clearly in English) to remain a virgin (here condition, or state) is her intention.

No you have not.

I have presented the evidence.

No you haven't .

If you are willing, please present your textual analysis to support your opinion. Please also, if you are willing, refer to the analysis I have presented with factual supported counterclaim.

She was shocked... confussed... scared and wallah within 48 hours she was pregnant. that is it. Nothing more.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

again. Same ol', same ol'. You don't really care from your posts whether people show you scriptural, historical, and traditional support of this view, because we gave it, and you continue to ignore it and give the same stale responses. We're not going to continue to play this game.

For this matter (typically intensively personal and private), it is declared by two denominations that it is a matter of highest importance for all to know and believe and a matter of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.


Assuming you regard gossip to be a sin, and assuming that you think Truth matters (even when applied to the most esteemed person ever to have lived), then does truth matter HERE? Especially since it is claimed this is a "most important" issue and "the greatest certainty of Truth?"


What has been offered to date is:

1. The two denominations that insists it's true insist that it's true.

2. Those (beginning LONG after Mary and anyone who could have known about her personal, private sex life had died) who said this is true said that it's true.

3. It's POSSIBLE that Mary had no other children specifically mentioned in the Bible. However, it has not be documented, biologically, that every single act of loving marital intimacies results in a child - and one specifically mentioned in the Bible. Thus, this entire apologetic is absolutely irrelevant.

4. No one seems able to prove that she DID have sex. Again, this is irrelevant. Catholics and Orthodox REJECT this apologetic and thus cannot ask others to accept it as valid when they reject it as valid.

5. It's POSSIBLE (it we ignore verb tenses or at least subject texts to extreme, "deep thinking" and "heavy analysis" that the Bible at least regards this as a POSSIBILITY. However, that's entirely irrelevant to it supporting the Dogma as true.



I spent a year in intense study of Mormonism. The SAD thing is, the apologetics in this thread (and others on this topic) presented to support this view make Mormonism look absolutely proven by comparison. The apologetics here are less than weak, they boarder on embarrassing. And there's NO WAY you would accept ANYTHING of this nature as confirmation from ANY non-catholic, non-orthodox (I know because I've seen the rejections in other threads). Worse, while NOTHING has been shown to confirm this intensely private, personal tidbit to be true (only, AT MOST, theoretically POSSIBLE), there's been a complete evasion of why THIS issue (how often couples have sex) is SO, so very, very radically IMPORTANT - to the highest level possible. Why do you CARE how often She and St. Joseph shared marital intimacies (if at all), SO much - so very, very,very much - to make THIS dogma, a matter of highest importance? In fact, why mention it AT ALL? Do you talk about how often you have sex? Your mother or sister or daughter? THAT issue has been entirely evaded. Both the TRUTH of it and why it's so IMPORTANT.







.