Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[razeontherock]

So did the the Monarchianists, Unitarians, Sabellians, and Arians. So do the Mormons and Jehova Witnesses.

This makes no sense.

And the Trinity: how the three divine Persons definitively relate to each other.

I don't see that we have any "how the three divine Persons definitively relate to each other" today, so this point is moot.

 

[justinangel]

This makes no sense.

All these various forms of heresies result from appealling to Scripture as the sole rule of faith. You have heard of tritheism, havent you? This is the belief that there are three Gods in the triune Godhead, not three distinct Persons consubstantially united in one God as defined by the Council of Nicea in accord with orthodox Christian belief.

I don't see that we have any "how the three divine Persons definitively relate to each other" today, so this point is moot.

Read the definitions of the ecumenical councils as opposed to the heterodox beliefs that had existed among errant sects in the early centuries. You can click "Councils" at www.papalencyclicals.net.

PAX

 

[razeontherock]

Ya know, when you train a bank teller, you don't show them every type of counterfeit. What you do, is train them to recognize the real deal. That way, counterfeit sticks out like a sore thumb.

I would hope you could extend this idea appropriately.

 

[washedagain]

Is there something shocking about it? His parish through the liturgy out in favor of the sort of happy-clappy band concerts. Not exactly an insignificant issue.

They did away with the liturgy simply because they got a praise band... I am confused. You can have liturgy and a praise band.

What is the Matter with happy clappy? I think it delights God that we rejoice by being happy and clappy! LOL

 

[Philothei]

Ya know, when you train a bank teller, you don't show them every type of counterfeit. What you do, is train them to recognize the real deal. That way, counterfeit sticks out like a sore thumb.

I would hope you could extend this idea appropriately.

Are we calling counterfeit the councils here? That is new!! Like the "tradiiton" of not believing in the EV.

 

[Thekla]

Disagreed. I find Trinity to be perfectly clear in Scripture, and the same goes for Mary's Divine maternity, and chastity. (Until Jesus' birth) The only one of these that needs anything extra-Biblical for support is PV, although I must admit this is a case where Tradition at least does not contradict Scripture.

The position of Mary having children relies on extra-scriptural support, and does contradict what is written in Scripture; it is indeed a tradition.
The understanding of ever-virginity is more consistent with Scripture.

 

[Thekla]

Ya know, when you train a bank teller, you don't show them every type of counterfeit. What you do, is train them to recognize the real deal. That way, counterfeit sticks out like a sore thumb.

I would hope you could extend this idea appropriately.

This is relevant to an issue that has been running "under" this thread, and several in GT.

Among those who honor what is recorded in Scripture, the translators changes to Scripture should raise alarm bells.

Per this thread, consider that the term mnisteuw/engaged has been translated gamew/espoused. And this change has suggested a particular interpretation of every other verse mentioning Mary, an interpretation that is not actually supported by what is stated in Scripture.

As an aside (as many know) I was raised in a Scripture centered Protestant Church. (Well, the denomination at large was not necessarily, but my dad was my only minister til I was 18, and he was strongly Scripture centered.)

The Orthodox Church was the only other Scripture-center Church I could find.

Now consider: the translators have changed words in Scripture (mnisteuw to gamew, ostis to dioti ostis, paradosis to didaskalia), and these changes support their understanding, their tradition.

The Orthodox Churches had every opportunity to likewise change Scripture in order to more clearly back up the teachings still held - and didn't.

So who honors Scripture more - those who change Scripture to force a more clear support for their position, or those who don't change Scripture.

 

[Dorothea]

Exactly. The Bible does say that there were 4 named brothers and numembred and unnamed sisters of Jesus. But it doesn't say they were via Mary (athough - yes - "brother" here would need to be in the loosest meaning possible since Joseph was not related to Jesus - but yes, that meaning did exist). It doesn't say the WERE via Mary, and it doesn't say they were NOT via Mary. It doesn't say. The Bible also doesn't say that Mary had no sex ever. It doesn't say that She did and it doesn't say that She didn't. It doesn't say. If silence is reason to be silent in one case, why is it defended in the other as in fact confirmation of a view?

The Bible says Mary is the mother of the firstborn, our Savior, Jesus Christ. No other child. That's good enough for me.

You said, Those who think Mary had children are reading into things that aren't there and are assuming much that isn't there as well." Okay, when you read the SILENCE about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - SILENCE about anything remotely related to it - how is insisting, in the boldest way possible, "Mary made a vow to God, the precise content of said vow was 'I will die - or not - having had no sex ever' and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth and fact that Mary had no sex ever" - how is that not "reading into things that aren't there and assuming much that isn't there as well?"

If it doesn't say Joseph and Mary were ever truly married, only betrothed, how can one jump to the conclusion they had marital relations?

I agree. NORMALLY, how often people have sex is a private matter. Note how we have YET to have any woman here defending this dogma telling us how often THEY have sex, and yet.... I know, it's just ONE of the many very peculiar things about this dogma. Many that are uncomfortable with it share your feeling completely, responding "why is it anyone's business? Much less a matter of highest importance?" I don't think it's any of my business how often you have sex (if at all).

I don't want to discuss sex, thank you. We can discuss Mary's obedience to God, and her life as a dedicated and loving handmaiden of God and how she was with no man because that's what it shows in the Bible. And we've told you, I don't know how many times, why her ever-virginity (her devotion and total dedication to God) is so important. It points to Christ our Savior.

And nothing says that she wasn't or didn't have other children. And - to the point - NOTHING is said of any vow by Mary to God, NOTHING about the content of said vow, and NOTHING about how often She had sex - if at all - up to and including the moment of Her death (or undeath, depending on your view there). If silence means we CANNOT say Mary had children, why does SILENCE mean we can shout in the boldest way possible that Mary had no sex ever?

It sure does! It says she was the Mother of Christ God. It DOES NOT say she was the mother of any other children. If she wasn't married, then she didn't have marital relations, so she could not have bore any other children. The end.

 

[Dorothea]

This is relevant to an issue that has been running "under" this thread, and several in GT.

Among those who honor what is recorded in Scripture, the translators changes to Scripture should raise alarm bells.

Per this thread, consider that the term mnisteuw/engaged has been translated gamew/espoused. And this change has suggested a particular interpretation of every other verse mentioning Mary, an interpretation that is not actually supported by what is stated in Scripture.

As an aside (as many know) I was raised in a Scripture centered Protestant Church. (Well, the denomination at large was not necessarily, but my dad was my only minister til I was 18, and he was strongly Scripture centered.)

The Orthodox Church was the only other Scripture-center Church I could find.

Now consider: the translators have changed words in Scripture (mnisteuw to gamew, ostis to dioti ostis, paradosis to didaskalia), and these changes support their understanding, their tradition.

The Orthodox Churches had every opportunity to likewise change Scripture in order to more clearly back up the teachings still held - and didn't.

So who honors Scripture more - those who change Scripture to force a more clear support for their position, or those who don't change Scripture.

Bishop Isaiah had talked about the problems with translations, and that this was partly the reason why the Jewish authorities after the death of Christ, threw out some OT books that were originally there and used by the Greek-speaking Jews that were there around 200 years before Christ came to earth. It is said that the Jewish authorities took out some of the books that pointed more to the ever-virginity of Mary and her being the Mother of God - Christ the Savior - and other more telling passages that Christ was the Messiah.

 

[Thekla]

The Bible says Mary is the mother of the firstborn, our Savior, Jesus Christ. No other child. That's good enough for me.

If it doesn't say Joseph and Mary were ever truly married, only betrothed, how can one jump to the conclusion they had marital relations?

yup

I don't want to discuss sex, thank you. We can discuss Mary's obedience to God, and her life as a dedicated and loving handmaiden of God and how she was with no man because that's what it shows in the Bible. And we've told you, I don't know how many times, why her ever-virginity (her devotion and total dedication to God) is so important. It points to Christ our Savior.

Indeed
Just as Scripture is, at the heart, about Christ.

It sure does! It says she was the Mother of Christ God. It DOES NOT say she was the mother of any other children. If she wasn't married, then she didn't have marital relations, so she could not have bore any other children. The end.

True to Scripture.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The position of Mary having children relies on extra-scriptural support,

Well, IF there was a dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" then I agree - it seems quite likely that it would be reasonably arbitrated that such is insufficiently substantiated.

and does contradict what is written in Scripture

I disagree. IF there was a dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids," it would not contradict Scripture at all. But such would be meaningless and irrelevant in terms to confirm such to be true.

The understanding of ever-virginity is more consistent with Scripture.

"More" is hardly confirmation....

Actually, since there is a Scripture about Jesus' siblings (it's just not definitive enough for dogma), and since there is NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born, I'd say that idea of Mary Had Lotsa Kids is more defendable by Scripture than is Mary Had No Sex EVER - but it would be my arbitration that EITHER can be confirmed OR denied by Scripture. But then there is no Dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" (or even an official teaching or doctrine) in ANY denomination known to me. There is a Dogma of "Mary Had No Sex EVER" in two denominations.









.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Bible says Mary is the mother of the firstborn, our Savior, Jesus Christ. No other child. That's good enough for me.

1. There is (and never has been) any dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" OR "Mary Had No Other Kids - Just Jesus." Nor is such a non-existent dogma the issue before us. The issue here is the claim that Mary made a specific vow to God, that the precise content of said vow was, "Up to and through the moment of my death or undeath, I shall have no sex ever," and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth, that Mary Had No Sex EVER. We're discussing the confirmation of such to the level claimed (if truth matters to you).


2. The Bible says that Mary was a virgin at the Annunication and Nativity. Might that be good enough for us? IF you said you were a virgin on your marriage day, might it be enough to leave it there - and not shout in the loudest way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for all to know and a matter of greatest certainty of truth and fact that after that up to and through the moment of your death (or undeath), you will have sex _____ number of times?

If it doesn't say Joseph and Mary were ever truly married, only betrothed, how can one jump to the conclusion they had marital relations?

There are only two denominations on the planet, since the 6th century anyway, that have jumped to ANY conclusions about all that AT ALL.

I don't want to discuss sex, thank you.

Can't blame you; I'm sure a lot of our friends aren't participating in this thread (and all the others about Mary's sex life) for the same reason. I didn't until I was maybe 16 or 17 - I just found it too disrespectful until then. But since it's DOGMA - forever dividing the church to the highest level over this issue of her sex life - I don't think we have any choice. If these two denominations insists on shouting about it, as a matter of highest importance for all then it's a matter of highest importance of all for all to discuss, however inappropriate it may understandably seem.

It DOES NOT say she was the mother of any other children.

I agree. And so you don't say anything about it. The Bible of course also says NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. You don't assuming anything as a dogmatic fact in one case but do in the other. I agree with you: Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles and everyone for at least 200 years said NOTHING about Mary's kids (other than Jesus), just as they said NOTHING about Mary having not had sex (other than at the Nativity). I understand your rubric, you're just reversing it in the case of Mary's sex life.






.

 

[Thekla]

Well, IF there was a dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" then I agree - it seems quite likely that it would be reasonably arbitrated that such is insufficiently substantiated.

It is directly contradicted by what is stated in Scripture; anyone who states that Jesus had siblings is appealing to tradition (ie cannot claim to adhere to Sola Scriptura).

I disagree. IF there was a dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids," it would not contradict Scripture at all. But such would be meaningless and irrelevant in terms to confirm such to be true.

Exactly not; both Luke and Matthew attest that Mary and Joseph were engaged (mnisteuw). Nowhere in Scripture is it attested that they were married.

And nowhere is attested that Jesus had siblings. No such passage exists.

"More" is hardly confirmation....

The parameters of your particular standards for "confirmation" have not been stated. Claiming that something is "hardly confirmed" where no standards have been iterated is meaningless.

Actually, since there is a Scripture about Jesus' siblings (it's just not definitive enough for dogma), and since there is NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born, I'd say that idea of Mary Had Lotsa Kids is more defendable by Scripture than is Mary Had No Sex EVER - but it would be my arbitration that EITHER can be confirmed OR denied by Scripture. But then there is no Dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" (or even an official teaching or doctrine) in ANY denomination known to me. There is a Dogma of "Mary Had No Sex EVER" in two denominations.

There is no Greek equivalent for "siblings".

Translators have changed the Scripture to make mnisteuw mean gamew, have made gyni mean a part of its meaning instead of its actual meaning (woman) and have added a possessive.

To claim that the text says Jesus has siblings is to change Scripture - just like many translators have done with mnisteuw/gyne/ - to support a tradition. Some Sola Scriptura !

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is directly contradicted by what is stated in Scripture

Quote the verse(s) that state, "Jesus was an only child" or "Jesus had no sibs."

nowhere is attested that Jesus had siblings. No such passage exists.

nowhere is attested that Mary had no sex. No such passage exists.

But there is not a single denomination on the planet that does (or ever has had) an official teaching or a doctrine or a dogma or a de fide dogma that "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" There are two denominations that have de fide dogma that "Mary Had No Sex EVER." If silence makes a personal opinion untenable, incredible - then what does it do to a dogma?






.

 

[Philothei]

Can't blame you; I'm sure a lot of our friends aren't participating in this thread (and all the others about Mary's sex life) for the same reason. I didn't until I was maybe 16 or 17 - I just found it too disrespectful until then. But since it's DOGMA - forever dividing the church to the highest level over this issue of her sex life - I don't think we have any choice. If these two denominations insists on shouting about it, as a matter of highest importance for all then it's a matter of highest importance of all for all to discuss, however inappropriate it may understandably seem.

The Bible is calling her Virgin..so the Bible is NOT silent about it period.

 

[narnia59]

So if there are no denominations that have a dogma that says Mary was not a perpetual virgin, how come there are so many people in those denominations who teach it?

John MacArthur for example. Evangelical preacher whose study bible has sold more than a million copies, president of a seminary, pastor of a church, and considered to be one of the most popular evangelical preachers around. Actively teaches that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

A simple google search will turn up site after site professing the Bible "truth" that Mary was not a virgin. Non-denominational churches, baptist churchs, evangelicals, church of Christ -- all teaching to their flocks that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Of course, they don't call it "dogma". They simply call it "biblical truth".

Come to think of it, they don't call anything "dogma".

It is interesting that one who claims 'no opinion' on a matter can so vehemently object when a group takes one side and defines it as being dogma, but has no objections to people teaching the other side at all, as long as they don't call it "dogma". They can call it "bible truth" though. Apparently that's okay.

Of course, the logic of that thinking escapes me.

 

[justinangel]

So if there are no denominations that have a dogma that says Mary was not a perpetual virgin, how come there are so many people in those denominations who teach it?

John MacArthur for example. Evangelical preacher whose study bible has sold more than a million copies, president of a seminary, pastor of a church, and considered to be one of the most popular evangelical preachers around. Actively teaches that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

A simple google search will turn up site after site professing the Bible "truth" that Mary was not a virgin. Non-denominational churches, baptist churchs, evangelicals, church of Christ -- all teaching to their flocks that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Of course, they don't call it "dogma". They simply call it "biblical truth".

Come to think of it, they don't call anything "dogma".

It is interesting that one who claims 'no opinion' on a matter can so vehemently object when a group takes one side and defines it as being dogma, but has no objections to people teaching the other side at all, as long as they don't call it "dogma". They can call it "bible truth" though. Apparently that's okay.

Of course, the logic of that thinking escapes me.

Me, too. Dogma can be described as being a biblical truth or a revelation from God made explicit.

PAX

 

[Philothei]

It is interesting that one who claims 'no opinion' on a matter can so vehemently object when a group takes one side and defines it as being dogma, but has no objections to people teaching the other side at all, as long as they don't call it "dogma". They can call it "bible truth" though. Apparently that's okay.

Exactly...both sides are beliefs calling it dogma does not change anything.

Actually a dogma indeed brings it in a higher level as this individaull doctrine has to do with the incarntion. That is a difficult issue and I understand some frustration though. The "higher importance" is not in the physical virginity but the spiritual sens of what a virgin is all about. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the center or the focal point of this conversation.

 

[Philothei]

I agree. NORMALLY, how often people have sex is a private matter. Note how we have YET to have any woman here defending this dogma telling us how often THEY have sex, and yet.... I know, it's just ONE of the many very peculiar things about this dogma. Many that are uncomfortable with it share your feeling completely, responding "why is it anyone's business? Much less a matter of highest importance?" I don't think it's any of my business how often you have sex (if at all).

Who says? I think the ones who feel uncomfortable discussing sex indeed should not bring it up For the EV of Mary is NOT about her physical virginity as much as it is about her spiritual disposition of her entire life.

True there is nothing to discuss about marital relations. I am surprised though that you keep bringing in this type of convo and language...I am wondering why is that? What can come out of such "exchange". Do you think calling is Ever Virginity of Mary might be a better term ? Just saying here. After all if you feel uncomfortable why bring in the "no sex ever" instead of Ever Virginity. Between the two I think the second term is much more suitable for Theotokos.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

OK, here's the deal...

Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary 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)

Above is the original post which clearly states the parameters of discussion to take place within this thread. From this point on discussion in this thread will be strictly enforced to keep to the original topic; that being: the origins of this belief and evidence, theories, traditions which support it.

Discussion and debate against this theory are not part of the original post, so they shall not be part of this thread from this point on.

There have been/are lots of threads where Semper Virago have been and is being discussed; this is not one of them.

Negative discussion and negative debate in this thread IS disruptive behavior and off topic as per CF rules, and action will be taken by staff if this persists.

Be advised that such action could result in Violations, Infractions, and even limitations to members access to Christian Forums, temporary and permanent.

While this thread is in need of a cleanup, it would be a huge job. I think that we are all reasonable and can put that behind us, and stay on topic; if we can not this thread will be closed or deleted, and staff actions will proceed fast and furious.

That being said, we will now return to the current program.

Happy, and God willing, civil posting!

Mark
Staff Supervisor and GT 911 Mod.