Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Philothei]

So what? I'm entirely lost as to what your comment has to do with what I posted or with providing the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Your partners here have claimed it's ALWAYS been believed, and FROM THE BEGINNING (which was defined as 33 AD), and "FROM THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES" (before 100 AD).

You seem to disagree with your fellow believers. Okay. Could you supply 5 quotes from 150 AD (or before) that state that Mary Had No Sex EVER? And then, if you can, explain how they knew this? Why they are telling this normally private piece of information of the wedding bed?





No confirmation needed? Is that always true with dogmas? IF someone had a dogma that Joseph Smith found two plates near his home, then case closed....period?" If somehow said that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have a 'love child' together then case closed....period!" When does truth matter and when it is like here just dismissed as irrelevant? Is this true for other denominations or just yours?

Ridiculous that is not a true statement...

It's a verbatim quote from an EO poster.

Who said it was?






.

I thought it was one source before 100 AD now it is five... sources before 150 AD....wow

 

[Dorothea]

CalifornianJosiah, until you can offer compelling evidence as to why we must use 1st century quotes since you were the one who asked for this in the first place, and until you can also explain why all the other quotes do not count as the "evidence" you asked for, then I consider any post you make to be the flailings of a man who has lost an argument.

You have been buried in evidence. Sticking your head out of the dirt and muttering "show...me...the proof" does not negate the fact that you have been buried.

Yep.

 

[Philothei]

Hi

Who is angry with Mary and who is dragging her through the mud? Are you talking about people here on this board? If so, tell me what they are saying and I will assist you in setting them straight... this is the mother of our Lord we are talking about! Grrrrrrrrrr.... that would make me very upset if someone was trash mouthing Mary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one is doing this.. for sure. But to say that the EO dogma on virginity is not substantiated ...is a bit much after all these threads have helped others to see where the EV beleived since the beginning.

 

[washedagain]

No one is doing this.. for sure. But to say that the EO dogma on virginity is not substantiated ...is a bit much after all these threads have helped others to see where the EV beleived since the beginning.

Oh OK.... so the poster is wrong for stating such?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

EV beleived since the beginning.

Do you agree with our friend that "the beginning" is 33 AD? IF not, when is "the beginning?" IF so, then please confirm that it was believed at that point that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Thank you. That, obviously, doesn't substantiate that it is true or most important but at least your comment will have some basis for consideration.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ridiculous that is not a true statement... ​

​

​

​

It's a verbatim quote from an EO poster.

Yes, it is. I accept that you find it so "ridiculous" but it's not my view.

I thought it was one source before 100 AD now it is five... sources before 150 AD....wow

I know! It sure is hard to keep up with all the claims! They keep changing - every time some substantiation is sought. Yup, once it was claimed that it was beleived since 150. But no one substantiated that. Then, that it was taught during the time of the Apostles (prior to 100 AD). But nothing was substaniated on that. So then it was stated that it was taught "from the beginning." I asked when "the beginning" was and great effort to say it was 33 AD, but.... well, you guessed it, nothing was presented to substantiate that. It does leave you saying wow, doesn't it? And if it was all just about some female here at CF, us going on and on about how often she has sex, who'd care (I have a hunch we'd all be banned if we posted in such a thread anyway, lol). But it's about MARY - the most esteemed woman in all of human history. Wow, indeed! And it's not just a mob going on and on about how often one has sex, it's insisted that it's dogma - a matter of highest importance possible (this how often this couple had sex before Mary died - if at all) and a matter of greatest certainty (which you'd think would make it easier to substantiate). Wow, indeed. I know, I often feel that way!






.

 

[Thekla]

5. That this dogma actually is "about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term). This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex." (quoting verbatim an EO poster).
​

Ridiculous that is not a true statement...
It's a verbatim quote from an EO poster.

You have completely misrepresented what I stated.

Why ?

 

[katherine2001]

Josiah, I believe that you should have the same burden of proof. Since you so strongly believe that Mary and Joseph did have sex after she had Christ and that they had children together, you should be able to show that the Church believed that from the beginning. We expect you to provide proof for your belief as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that you will find that this belief didn't come into play until the Reformation, over 1,500 years after the church began. Also, since they supposedly had other children together, that you should be able to find all their names (and supposedly He had sisters as well as brothers), as well as how much younger than Christ they were.

Also, maybe you can find writings as to why the church believed that Christ gave John the responsibility to care for His mother from the cross, when she supposedly had other sons to take care of her (and which Jewish law required).

 

[justinangel]

Also, maybe you can find writings as to why the church believed that Christ gave John the responsibility to care for His mother from the cross, when she supposedly had other sons to take care of her (and which Jewish law required).

Some Protestants will argue that Jesus ignored his brothers because they didn't believe in him (Jn 7:5) as John did, making the disciple his true brother in the spiritual order. However, in Acts 1:14 we read that Mary and our Lord's "brothers" were with the apostles and other believers when the Holy Spirit descended upon them. Surely Jesus would have known that his "brothers" would finally convert, and so he would have entrusted his mother to the next eldest son. So the brothers John refers to in his Gospel and Luke in his Book are male relatives of Jesus, not his siblings.

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, you so strongly believe that Mary and Joseph did have sex

Quote me where I posted that.

you should be able to show that the Church believed that from the beginning.

IF "all Christians believing from the beginning" is what you regard as evidence of a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth, then you have established the requirement for the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER. A fellow Catholic went to some pains to define "beginning" in Christianity as 33 AD. Thus, please post the MANY quotes you have from 33 AD that documents that all Christians in 33 AD believed it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. (Several others have pledged to also document that but we're still waiting, perhaps you'll beat them to it).



Thank you! I'll await your quote of me and your several quotes from Christians from 33 AD.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You have completely misrepresented what I stated.

Why ?

I quoted you VERBATIM.




.

 

[Thekla]

Read your post 321. You quoted me in black font and you replied in red font.

Philothei replied in red font.
I am Thekla.

 

[Philothei]

Some Protestants will argue that Jesus ignored his brothers because they didn't believe in him (Jn 7:5) as John did, making the disciple his true brother in the spiritual order. However, in Acts 1:14 we read that Mary and our Lord's "brothers" were with the apostles and other believers when the Holy Spirit descended upon them. Surely Jesus would have known that his "brothers" would finally convert, and so he would have entrusted his mother to the next eldest son. So the brothers John refers to in his Gospel and Luke in his Book are male relatives of Jesus, not his siblings.

PAX

\


QFT

That would be the ONLY logical explanation and St. John Chrysostom would agree with you as Justin the martyr and other fathers who were brought about.

 

[Philothei]

#326 This part is not part of my post. Just clearing up what I wrote and what not here.

Originally Posted by Philothei

It's a verbatim quote from an EO poster.
​

Anyone can follow the arrow to verify that was NOT my post.

 

[Thekla]

Women are not replaceable, EO posters are not interchangeable.

There is a clear pattern of behavior in this thread and others on this topic.

Selective counterargument against a position in spite of the claim of no position. A position of "no position", if authentically held, would take an interest in questioning all positions.

Persistent distortion of statements made by other posters.

Standard/s for authenticating or supporting one position that is constantly shifted, not fully described unless it is not met (hide the standard for the purpose of undermining any response); this standard is never applied across the board (to all positions) but only to one position.

A refusal to consider statements made by anyone holding one position (evidenced by non-responsive 'responses', often cut 'n pastes of previous posts or restatements of statements made in previous posts over years), and this pattern is applied only to posters holding that one position.

Ie. the pattern of behavior, which is selective and unevenly applied to only those holding a particular position, reveals an underlying agenda that lies beyond the particular discussion occurring here.

Experience from past attempts to discuss this matter (where the same pattern was evidenced) regarding examples and inquiries made using or directed solely at women further clarifies the contours of a subtext, no matter how inchoately this translates into an agenda appears in stated in-thread form.

I have dealt with this issue, and have iterated a response based not on the supposed agenda, but its result, ie the "face" that the pattern presents, in post #269.

 

[Philothei]

I think it will be very interesting to examine this belief, where it originated from and any evidence of such a theory/teaching/belief/doctrine as being legit or true.

(not sure what the official position of the RCC is with this)

I wonder if the OP feels that all positions are at wrong? I cannot seem to get a straight notion as to what the OP believes...either. Can we have a clarification to what it is that the OP is actually looking for? Because all evidence has already been brought forth:

1. Scriptural support
2. Tradition explained and supporting Fathers, council's decision already be brought up


I think that if no position is indeed declared here then ANY position would be at fault automatically...would it? Just trying to be logical here.

 

[Thekla]

I think that if no position is indeed declared here then ANY position would be at fault automatically...would it? Just trying to be logical here.

If one is being intellectually honest, yes.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think that if no position is indeed declared here then ANY position would be at fault automatically...would it? Just trying to be logical here.

[I make my living in the area of research, so this is an issue I work with, at least 40 hours a week]


Logically, no.

There are 3 possibilities to ANY question:
1. It is correct (to a nearly infinite range of degrees of certainty)
2. It is incorrect (this too can can ranges of certainty)
3. It cannot be determined.
ALL three are "logical."
ALL three are "intellectually HONEST." (Interesting great emphasis is given about HONESTY, specifically INTELLECTUAL honest - not faith).


Let's say it is stated, "There if life on other planets."
That, then, becomes the position being evaluated.
Some sound outside rule/canon/norma normans needs to be employed.
Some sound outside process of arbitration employed.
Then this process declares if it has been "normed" correct, incorrect or if it is not capable of being normed at all.

Since this is a topic of some interest to me, and I've engaged in discussions of it since I was perhaps 7 years old, I can tell you that almost universally, all scientists (and even nearly all pure laypeople) are of the opinion that this is unnormed either way - at this point, there is insufficient data (thus the GREAT desire of some to secure more information through research). The answer is desired but as yet can't be determined. All this is generally regarded as quite "logical" and yes (this IS important)... "intellectually HONEST." That doesn't mean one can't have a passionate OPINION (many do!) but there's no dogma or heresy here, it simply is not normed right or wrong at this point.




In this thread, we are exploring a vow of Mary. It is presented that Mary made a vow specifically to God and that the exact content of said vow is that Mary will have no sex ever. This is all in the context of a position given in the very strongest form possible - that it is a dogmatic FACT of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth (as high of a "bar" as possible to construct - thus mandating as high of a level of substantiation as is possible) that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That's the position.

There are three equally logical conclusions, 3 possible ways this might be arbitrated:
1. It is correct (in this case, to the level claimed)
2. It is incorrect (actually, anything less than the level claimed COULD be so regarded)
3. It cannot be determined either way (insufficient data).


In this regard, two (of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist) regard #1 as the conclusion - the facts and data presented are so extremely convincing - to the very highest possible level - that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for all to know and of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary made said vow and that she had no ever. Some here in this thread are seeking to know what this so powerful corpus of facts are.

There are none taking postion #2. That it is incorrect. There is not a single denomination known to me that says, "Mary made no such vow and she had lotsa sex." None are saying that on ANY level - as dogma, as doctrine, as teaching, as opinion - not on ANY level. None are saying it's wrong.

There are 49,998 taking position #3. That to date, insufficent data has been presented to document that it is a matter of HIGHEST IMPORTANCE to all the world's 7 billion people AND that it's a matter of GREATEST TRUTH that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Some might be comfortable with the view on a much lower level but that's not the position. But in any case, to date, 49,998 are holding to position #3 - it cannot be determined, giving the data that exists, if it is correct or incorrect that "it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all the world and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER." TO DATE, I agree with those 49,998. But I'm VERY interested in the data and I have made no final conclusion - I'm a seeker.






.

 

[Philothei]

As long as one examines all other "opinions" then ok I agree but when one is ONLY examines the one...Then it becomes a bit problematic I think.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

[I make my living in the area of research, so this is an issue I work with, at least 40 hours a week]


Logically, no.

There are 3 possibilities to ANY question:
1. It is correct (to a nearly infinite range of degrees of certainty)
2. It is incorrect (this too can can ranges of certainty)
3. It cannot be determined.
ALL three are "logical."
ALL three are "intellectually HONEST." (Interesting great emphasis is given about HONESTY, specifically INTELLECTUAL honest - not faith).


Let's say it is stated, "There if life on other planets."
That, then, becomes the position being evaluated.
Some sound outside rule/canon/norma normans needs to be employed.
Some sound outside process of arbitration employed.
Then this process declares if it has been "normed" correct, incorrect or if it is not capable of being normed at all.

Since this is a topic of some interest to me, and I've engaged in discussions of it since I was perhaps 7 years old, I can tell you that almost universally, all scientists (and even nearly all pure laypeople) are of the opinion that this is unnormed either way - at this point, there is insufficient data (thus the GREAT desire of some to secure more information through research). The answer is desired but as yet can't be determined. All this is generally regarded as quite "logical" and yes (this IS important)... "intellectually HONEST." That doesn't mean one can't have a passionate OPINION (many do!) but there's no dogma or heresy here, it simply is not normed right or wrong at this point.




In this thread, we are exploring a vow of Mary. It is presented that Mary made a vow specifically to God and that the exact content of said vow is that Mary will have no sex ever. This is all in the context of a position given in the very strongest form possible - that it is a dogmatic FACT of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth (as high of a "bar" as possible to construct - thus mandating as high of a level of substantiation as is possible) that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That's the position.

There are three equally logical conclusions, 3 possible ways this might be arbitrated:
1. It is correct (in this case, to the level claimed)
2. It is incorrect (actually, anything less than the level claimed COULD be so regarded)
3. It cannot be determined either way (insufficient data).


In this regard, two (of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist) regard #1 as the conclusion - the facts and data presented are so extremely convincing - to the very highest possible level - that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for all to know and of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary made said vow and that she had no ever. Some here in this thread are seeking to know what this so powerful corpus of facts are.

There are none taking postion #2. That it is incorrect. There is not a single denomination known to me that says, "Mary made no such vow and she had lotsa sex." None are saying that on ANY level - as dogma, as doctrine, as teaching, as opinion - not on ANY level. None are saying it's wrong.

There are 49,998 taking position #3. That to date, insufficent data has been presented to document that it is a matter of HIGHEST IMPORTANCE to all the world's 7 billion people AND that it's a matter of GREATEST TRUTH that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Some might be comfortable with the view on a much lower level but that's not the position. But in any case, to date, 49,998 are holding to position #3 - it cannot be determined, giving the data that exists, if it is correct or incorrect that "it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all the world and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER." TO DATE, I agree with those 49,998. But I'm VERY interested in the data and I have made no final conclusion - I'm a seeker.






.

Okay, so this is bothering me. Do you personally believe there are 50,000 denominations? Has anyone on this thread ever asserted that there are 50,000 denominations? If not, why do you insist on using that figure?

Also, do you think there are more people in the denominations which hold position #3 or position #1?

An aside, do you consider Oriental Orthodox their own denomination? Because in the 50,000 figure you keep using, it most certainly is (not to mention, in that overblown figure each specific Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction - Greek, Russian, etc. - is also considered a "denomination", so why do you use that number and then say only 2 of the 50,000 hold position #1 when that isn't even true?

It comes across as manipulative and dishonest to use the numbers in this way.