Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

Philothei said:

Having a no position indeed IMHO means someone does not care to form one

Click to expand...

Well, I have no dogma on how often you have sex.

Does that mean I don't care to form a dogma on that? Might it rather mean that either I don't consider how often you have sex to be an issue of highest importance to all people? Or simply that I don't have sufficient data on which to dogmatically state?






.

CalifornianJosiah, the proof has been laid out. You have failed to refute it. You repeat the same things over and over again. We have adjusted. We have sought to answer your questions. We have explained and quoted and cited and shown our burden of proof.

Claiming that you do not have a position is false and it's yet another example of how you are deceitfully manipulating this thread and willfully ignoring things in order to save face. Yes, deceitfully. You are being deceitful. I can count half a dozen posters other than myself who have gone to great lengths to provide the evidence you asked for (despite the fact that you keep changing your criteria).

We're ignoring questions? That's a plain lie! You are the one ignoring questions. We asked you to please explain why we have to produce a document from 33AD that states the perpetual virginity of Mary, and all you can say is "because YOU said it was from the beginning". You're playing Doubting Thomas and saying "unless I see someone say it from 100 AD or before..." in the face of insurmountable proof. After explaining why such a document would be nearly impossible to produce, you don't reply. You keep saying "only two denominations believe in the eternal virginity". We asked you "please quantify that" and you have not.

It is YOU who is dodging questions and willfully slithering in and out of this conversation.

.

mrmccormo said:

CalifornianJosiah, the proof has been laid out.

Click to expand...

You laid out your case. It did an AMAZINGLY good job of supporting the 49,998 denominations that are SILENT on this topic - and nothing to reveal your position as dogmatic fact. You actually seemed to admit that.


You refused to discuss ANYTHING I posted in response to your "laying out" - and defended your refusal to do so by claiming I refused to do so.

You have failed to refute it.

Click to expand...

You keep getting our positions confused.

You actually did a surprisingly good job of noting the inability you have to support your position (and quite a good job of showing why those 49,998 denominations being silent might have the stronger position)

We're ignoring questions? That's a plain lie! You are the one ignoring questions. We asked you to please explain why we have to produce a document from 33AD that states the perpetual virginity of Mary

Click to expand...

As I've explained, because it's the basis of the apology. It has been stated, over and over and over, "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV" and ergo, it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Well, for the apology to have any relevance, it needs to be true. See the post immediately above this one.





.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

If that's the required evidence of a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth, then let's see the confirmation of that.

Click to expand...

We've already quoted church fathers, shown documents of church practice, cited history, cited ecumenical councils...it has already been confirmed.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

I'll make it ever so easy for you: Quote from just 2 Christians who lived before 100 AD who state that Mary had no sex ever.

Click to expand...

And yet you can't explain why we need to meet this criteria. It isn't a good one, since you'd be unable to prove sola scriptura, Augustine's original sin, the Trinity, predestination, irresistable grace, and many more Christian doctrines using your same criteria.

Why such a strict requirement for a doctrine that you do not view as salvific or dogmatic? If you do not apply such a harsh requirement on Augustine's original sin or sola scriptura (which are crucial to your own Lutheran faith), then you are following a double standard. You are demanding a standard that you do not apply to your own faith.

You still conveniently dismiss my requests over and over again to explain why we need to produce documentation of this doctrine pre-100 AD.

washedagain said:

The passage in greek does not indicate NEVER. There is a word for NEVER in greek.

aiÎwñn αἰών

Mary would have said, "How can this be, I know not a man [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]aion (NEVER).[/FONT]


[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2. the worlds, universe
3. period of time, age

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Click to expand...

Εως has that connotation... until... It was said before
"After the birth of Jesus," said the false teacher Helvidius in the 4th century, and likewise many others before and after him, "Mary entered into conjugal life with Joseph and had from him children, who are called in the Gospels the brothers and sisters of Christ." But the word "until" does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word "until" and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God's righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet? (ICor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, "On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.") The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)


Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

washedagain said:

The passage in greek does not indicate NEVER. There is a word for NEVER in greek.

aiÎwñn αἰών [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]
Mary would have said, "How can this be, I know not a man [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]aion (NEVER)."

Or

"I will aion (never) know a man."
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2. the worlds, universe
3. period of time, age

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Click to expand...

An additional term is not needed as the meaning is embedded in the verb tense.

mrmccormo said:

philothei said:

The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV



.

Click to expand...

And yet you can't explain why we need to meet this criteria.

Click to expand...

So, is your point that an apologetic is valid even if it's entirely untrue and/or baseless?


You seem to keep getting our positions reversed. I NEVER said that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER because "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV" or because "All those who lived during the time of the Apostles believed this" or "Because all those who lived before 150 AD believed this" or "Because Martin Luther beleived this." No. I don't know where you got the idea that that is MY position. OTHERS have made that apologetic. To CONFIRM that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER. You seem to be getting our positions reversed. NOR did I say that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had Sex 652 times because a majority of Christians since 33 AD have believed that. YOU are the one with the dogma about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. Not me. You seem to keep forgetting that.



Friend, for an apologetic to have any relevance, shouldn't it be true? Don't you agree? Why does this SO bother and offend you? IF I posted, "It is believed by 51% of Catholics that the Pope is gay - and ergo, it is a dogmatic fact that he is," wouldn't you think it reasonable that it be supported that indeed 51% of Catholics think that and ergo it makes it a dogmatic fact of truth? Or is your position that ANY statement made is confirmation of Dogma irrespective of it being true? Is it IRRELEVANT if the basis of my apologetic is true or not?

Why such a strict requirement for a doctrine that you do not view as dogmatic?

Click to expand...

What rather amazes me is to what lengths to went to to show the weakness of the DOGMA and give quite a bit of support to those who are silent.

Why doesn't truth matter in a issue of greatest certainty of Truth? Actually (and I suspect you know this is true) the Protestants here (especially me, lol) have been FAR, FAR "easier" on you than Catholics are on Protestants - even for things FAR less than Dogma.

You still conveniently dismiss my requests over and over again to explain why we need to produce documentation of this doctrine pre-100 AD.

Click to expand...

As I've explained - over and over and over again - because CATHOLICS and ORTHODOX state that it's TRUE and use it as the apologetic for this Dogma. It's irrelevant if it's not true. This has been explained to you many, many times now.







.

washedagain said:

And yet... she never says NEVER.

To suggest that is what she MEANT is nothing but speculation and that is the best you can claim from the Greek. Well... that is not evidence... that is opinion and speculation.....

Oh and the REASON for documentation of the first century??????? Well, seems obvious to me... it is your camp that claims that it has ALWAYS been believed. Hence the reason for your camp to produce documentation from the BEGINING to substantiate "ALWAYS been believed".

Click to expand...

The meaning is contained in the verb tense.

We believe what is written in the Scripture.

washedagain said:

Nope..... YOUR meaning is embedded in the verb tense.

She could have meant never or just in her present state. WE DON'T know either way as "NEVER" (or a vow of perpetual virginity) is not qualified.

For certainty we would need a more specific sentence structure.

You believe it is future tense simply because you have a dogma to uphold.

I don't have a belief that demands a certainty.

Click to expand...

What Greek sentence structure is needed ?

.

washedagain said:

I already posted it.

There is a greek word for NEVER.

Click to expand...

It is not needed as it is embedded in the tense.

(She wasn't talking to you, but to Gabriel.)

Another dodge, CalifornianJosiah.

I asked a simple question: why must we document from a pre-100AD source the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

It's a simple question.

Clearly, you see a need because we've documented what Martin Luther believes on the subject (as well as the other reformers), we've documented what the ecumenical councils said on the subject, we've documented what church fathers said on the subject (over the course of 1,500 years). We've even shown evidence within Scripture.

Yet, all of these methods "fail" in your mind because you keep demanding that we produce a pre-100AD documentation of this doctrine.

Why? Please justify your position.

washedagain said:

I already posted it.

There is a greek word for NEVER.

Click to expand...

It's a bit shaky to claim that simply because there exists a Greek word for "never" and Mary didn't use it so therefore she didn't mean "never".

Mary would have never used the Greek word for "never". Do you know why? Because in all likelihood she spoke Arimaic. But the Greek writers quite obviously put a "never" inflection in the word.

There are are plenty of tenses that do not mean "never", so why didn't the writers use those? I'm simply using your own logic to come to this question.

mrmccormo said:

Another dodge, CalifornianJosiah.

I asked a simple question: why must we document from a pre-100AD source the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

It's a simple question.

Click to expand...

The answer is because Josiah feels there is no pre-100AD source (Biblical typology included) that teaches this. And even though pre-100-AD-only is not a standard with which Christ circumscribed the Church's understanding of truth (as even Lutherans believe), he feels he can get mileage out of discrediting the Catholic Church by way of this obviously hypocritical and irrational double standard. He will never admit to that. But that's why you don't get the answer to your simple question.