Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

1. Being a virgin and yet have conceived a child is EXTREMELY unsual, it seems to me. Do you know of one other case besides Mary?

Do you consider conception to be the actual time of conception or the event of conception ?

2. You seem to be missing the point: The 381 edition of the Creed says NOTHING about how often Mary did or did not have sex during Her lifetime. It does not say, "Who was conceived of Mary who had no sex ever." The whole point is the INCARNATION of Jesus, His being CONCEPTION. And yes, it seems to me that it IS unusual for someone to conceive a child and yet still be a virgin.

If Mary ceased to be a virgin, then it is a denial of her personhood to refer to her in the Creed as the Virgin Mary.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If Mary ceased to be a virgin, then it is a denial of her personhood to refer to her in the Creed as the Virgin Mary.

Absurd. The context is the incarnation of Jesus, not the death of Mary. It s speaking of the Incarnation of Jesus - and that Mary was a virgin. It is not speaking of the death of Mary - and that she was a virgin. It does not say, "incarnate of Mary who had no sex ever." It does not say "Incarnate of Mary who died a virgin." You are forcing MUCH into the Creed that's not there.

And you are failing to remember I do not claim she was not always a virgin. NO denomination but yours, the RCC and perhaps the OOC has any stand at all on how often Our Lady had sex - the rest of us are SILENT. We don't say She had sex one time. Or 5 times. Or 500 times. Or never at all. Nor does the Creed. It says Jesus was INCARNATE (the context) of the Virgin Mary. It does NOT say, "Mary died a virgin." It does not say, "Incarnate of Mary who had no sex EVER." YOU are the one insisting this is a dogmatic fact of highest certainty. YOU are the one insisting that how often She had sex is a matter of greatest, highest importance - Her sex life matters to the highest degree possible. I'm ONLY trying to get at the evidence to support that - and that She had sex exactly ZERO times. The fact and why how often She had sex is a matter of greatest importance and what evidence makes it "of greatest certainty of Truth." I'm all ears. But I disagree that the 381 edition of the creed is that evidence.






.

 

[Thekla]

Absurd. The context is the incarnation of Jesus, not the death of Mary. It s speaking of the Incarnation of Jesus - and that Mary was a virgin. It is not speaking of the death of Mary - and that she was a virgin. It does not say, "incarnate of Mary who had no sex ever." It does not say "Incarnate of Mary who died a virgin." You are forcing MUCH into the Creed that's not there.

And you are failing to remember I do not claim she was not always a virgin. NO denomination but yours, the RCC and perhaps the OOC has any stand at all on how often Our Lady had sex - the rest of us are SILENT. We don't say She had sex one time. Or 5 times. Or 500 times. Or never at all. Nor does the Creed. It says Jesus was INCARNATE (the context) of the Virgin Mary. It does NOT say, "Mary died a virgin." It does not say, "Incarnate of Mary who had no sex EVER." YOU are the one insisting this is a dogmatic fact of highest certainty. YOU are the one insisting that how often She had sex is a matter of greatest, highest importance - Her sex life matters to the highest degree possible. I'm ONLY trying to get at the evidence to support that - and that She had sex exactly ZERO times. The fact and why how often She had sex is a matter of greatest importance and what evidence makes it "of greatest certainty of Truth." I'm all ears. But I disagree that the 381 edition of the creed is that evidence.

Mary's personhood is not confined to the period of her life before the Incarnation.

To call her "Virgin Mary" in your interpretative ground is to refer to Mary as a portion of her life; it is to deny her full personhood.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Mary's personhood is not confined to the period of her life before the Incarnation.

To call her "Virgin Mary" in your interpretative ground is to refer to Mary as a portion of her life; it is to deny her full personhood.

I'm not denying ANYTHING.
YOU are insisting that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
How often She had sex is a matter of highest importance (dogma)
And greatest certianty of Truth (making it the easiest to confirm?).
I"m just asking for the evidence.
For all that.
To the level claimed.
I'm not denying ANYTHING.
You are claiming MUCH.
And saying it's of the very highest level of importance, how often She had sex during Her entire lifetime.


No, to say "the 381 Creed does NOT say that Mary Had No Sex Ever" is not denying Mary's "Personhood." And frankly, things are again getting close to accusing ME of some "anti" Mary feelings that I frankly resent - I love, adore, and revere Her above all save Her Son. I'm not "depriving Her' of Her "personhood." I'm disagreeing with you that the 381 Creed states, "Mary Had No Sex EVER." It does not.







.

 

[Philothei]

Why you prefer to use the term "no sex ever" instead of virgin Josiah?

 

[justinangel]

Perpetual?

It says BORN of the Virgin Mary - teaching that she was a virgin at His birth.

Where does the Creed say, "Born of Mary who had no sex ever?"

True, the Council of Constantinople 1 refers to Mary as "the virgin" to emphasize the fact that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. But the Fathers understood that by "virgin" it was meant ever-virgin. Observe how the Fathers of the Second Council of Constantinople (553) refer to Mary in the second anathema against the Three Chapters:

"If anyone will not confess the Word of God had two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of the latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her, let him be anathema."

The Fathers of both councils were committed to the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity as were all the faithful members of the Church, so there was no need to stress that Mary was ever-virgin. She could be referred to simply as "the virgin", for all were aware of Mary's constant virginity, and the councils were convoked to combat the Christological heresies of the time. The main focus was on Christ, not Mary. Meanwhile, baptized Christians who denied Mary was the mother of God or ever-virgin were anathematized.

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[justinangel]

.
Right. It has NOTHING to do with her status as such at the moment of Her death (or undeath, depending on your view there) and continuously up to and including that. Thus, it has NOTHING to so with the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER........

You don't make much sense, and I don't want to repeat everything I have already written, so I'll just sum up everything very briefly and leave it at that. The readers can judge for themselves.

1. The angel says to Mary, "You will conceive a child and name him Jesus?"

The angel doesn't specify when she will conceive the child. Nor does Mary ask the angel when this will happen. Her concern isn't with the time of the event. She is concerned with the manner of the conception, which is odd to say the least.

2. So Mary asks the angel, "How shall this be, since I know not a man?" Paraphrased: "How will I conceive this child, since I am a virgin?"

Notice the tension between the present "am" and the future "will". This is very significant. In ordinary circumstances there would be no tension. And this is no ordinary circumstance for Mary is confused. The second clause begins with the word since. She means: But I am a virgin!

In other words, Mary is acknowledging that virgins never conceive children. And since she is a virgin at the present time, but will conceive the child in the future, she must have the intention of retaining her virginity, for she knows about the birds and the bees. True, since the event will happen some time in the future, it is possible that she will conceive the child in 25 years from then - but not by natural means, since Mary does not ask "When shall this be?" She would have asked this question if she had intended to have children with Joseph and wondered when, among all her other offspring, the Messiah would be conceived. Mary was unaware that the Messiah would be a divine Person. She learned the truth when the angel answered her question.

3. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."


That's how!
Oh!

4. "I am the Lord's handmaid. Let it be done to me according to your word."

Because of her vow, Mary was the Lord's handmaid, not Joseph's. She belonged to God, just as Boaz's handmaid (a semitic idiom) Ruth belonged to her husband. Neither of these women could have conceived a child by another person without violating the precepts of Mosaic Law. And God certainly would not dismiss his own precepts in his infinite righteousness by permitting Mary to conceive another child by another person. Joseph was Mary's husband only legally. As Jews devoted to the sacred Torah, they knew they could not have children together without offending God, and that their union would be morally unlawful. It makes no difference whether Jesus' Father was divine. He was still a Person when Mary conceived the child by the power of the Holy Spirit. And he claimed Mary as his own ("by the power of"), just as he had Israel, daughter Zion.

As long as you keep denying what is obviously true and reasonable, you won't concede to the conclusion that is drawn, that Mary had made a vow of chastity to God. I'm sorry that her decision offends your sensibilities.

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[Philothei]

In simple terms the greek grammar does not justify it. Present tense has the future connotation into it.... That is of course if you accept the ...grammar as it is.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In simple terms the greek grammar does not justify it. Present tense has the future connotation into it.... That is of course if you accept the ...grammar as it is.

Not that I'm been able to determine....

I AM a virgin is a true statement. I does NOT mandate, grammatically, that I will die (or undie) as a virgin. I DO live in a certain apartment, that statement does not grammatically MANDATE - to the highest level possible - that I will die in this apartment.

I agree that your interpretation is probably not impossible, but you are assuming the view correct and then noting that this verse COULD (perhaps stretching things quite a lot) be seen as not contradicting that. But remember, I've NEVER said the view is wrong. I've NEVER said the veiw is contrary to Scripture What I'm replying to in that sub-discussion here is that the verse does not dogmatically state that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin at the second of Her death (or undeath - what IS the EOC dogma about that - did She die or not?), this verse is NOT saying that - much less to the highest degree of certainty (dogma). In fact, as we look at the grammar, the FAR more likely interpretation is the one that agrees with the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened ON THE SAME DAY and that Mary (somehow) knew that. THAT Catholic Tradition fits the grammar and the verse you quoted FAR better, in MY opinion, that trying to make the present active into the future perfect.





.

 

[Thekla]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] PRESENT
TENSE[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]CONTINUOUS ACTION
HABITUAL ACTION
OFTEN REFLECTS A LIFESTYLE
[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]http://www.preceptaustin.org/new_page_40.htm
[/FONT]

here ...

 

[Philothei]

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Do you believe that St. Athanasius who has contributed tons to the formation of the canon of the New Testament would be in error about the way he translated the Ever Virginity of Theotokos? All Fathers were wrong in claiming exactly the same?

The protoevangelion of James states the same and that dates from the 200 AD.
​

 

[Miser]

I thought Jesus had siblings

"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him."



(Matthew 12:46)

 

[Philothei]

Nah...Brother...was like a slang word back then too....Kinsmen were all 'bros" . Wide spectrum of translating this from cousin to kinsman...Another mistranslation of King James guh...

 

[Thekla]

I thought Jesus had siblings

"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him."



(Matthew 12:46)

Not including the common (vernacular) use of the term "adelphos", the Bible uses the term for: nephew, uncle, cousin, brother, step-brother, kinsman (tribal), like minded ...

Add the Biblical use and the non-Biblical use of the term at the time, you get more than a dozen meanings for the term adelphos.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. The angel says to Mary, "You will conceive a child and name him Jesus?"

The angel doesn't specify when she will conceive the child.

Exactly. The fulfillment of the prophecy could have been in Her hearing. It is grammatically VERY possible that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened ON THE SAME DAY. This is the ancient Catholic Tradition, which is why you celebrated the Annunication on March 25 (do the math). There is nothing - absolutely nothing - in the angel's message that grammatically mandates that the Incarnation would happen 25 years (or even one year) in the future when (perhaps) She and St. Joseph would have been joined together. The ancient Catholic Tradition (which oddly you are entirely, completely disregarding and rejecting) is that the Annunciation and Incarnation happened TOGETHER and that Mary (somehow) knew that the Incarnation was an immediate thing. If your Tradition about all this is correct, then the grammar here makes perfectly good sense. And it all fits the grammar used in the text (which may be the foundation for the ancient Catholic Tradition you are dismissing and rejecting).

since she is a virgin at the present time, but will conceive the child in the future

Yes, she is stressing that She IS a virgin.


She says nothing about any vow (or the content thereof). She says nothing about how often she intents to have sex during Her entire lifetime on Earth - especially to the level of highest certainty (dogma).


You are assuming that the future tense applies to the moment of Her death (or was it undeath). And again, your chief "problem" seems to be with CATHOLIC Tradition regarding this verse, namely that the Incarnation (the fulfillment of this prophecy - prophecies always given in the future tense) and the Annunication happened TOGETHER, on the same day. You want this to say (dogmatically, to the highest level of certainty) that this fulfillment will be months or years or decades in the future. The verse does not STATE (or even remotely imply) that your Catholic Tradition is wrong and that you were in error to celebrate the Annunciation on March 25.

Mary does not ask "When shall this be?"

True, so it must be hard for you to state - to the highest level of certainty possible - that the text indicates She thought this would be years or decades in the future (and thus the Catholic Tradition is wrong).

Again, while the text says NOTHING to remotely indicate that Mary took some vow and the content of such, and says NOTHING about how often Mary intends (much less DID or DID NOT) have sex during the course of Her entire pilgramage on Earth. NOTHING to support the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever. IMO, the ancient Catholic Tradition you are (curiously) so dismissing and rejecting is a far more likely situation, textually. And if so, then it ONLY speaks of Her virgin status ON THAT DAY - not on the day of Her death (or undeath - depending on your dogma on that).







.

 

[Philothei]

In fact, as we look at the grammar, the FAR more likely interpretation is the one that agrees with the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened ON THE SAME DAY and that Mary (somehow) knew that. THAT Catholic Tradition fits the grammar and the verse you quoted FAR better, in MY opinion, that trying to make the present active into the future perfect.

What Thekla posted is accurate. I do not care about the mambo jumbo of what the RC does. I am EO and can only speak for them. Not the RC. The grammar and the opinion of the Fathers agree with the EV of Mary. It is not a matter of interpretation but a matter of grammatical integrity. Greek language scholars who are honestly faithful to its grammatical canons would agree and who is better than the ones who lived closer to the historical event of canonizing the canon of the NT?

 

[Thekla]

Exactly. The fulfillment of the prophecy could have been in Her hearing. It is grammatically VERY possible that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened ON THE SAME DAY. This is the ancient Catholic Tradition, which is why you celebrated the Annunication on March 25 (do the math). There is nothing - absolutely nothing - in the angel's message that grammatically mandates that the Incarnation would happen 25 years (or even one year) in the future when (perhaps) She and St. Joseph would have been joined together. The ancient Catholic Tradition (which oddly you are entirely, completely disregarding and rejecting) is that the Annunciation and Incarnation happened TOGETHER and that Mary (somehow) knew that the Incarnation was an immediate thing. If your Tradition about all this is correct, then the grammar here makes perfectly good sense. And it all fits the grammar used in the text (which may be the foundation for the ancient Catholic Tradition you are dismissing and rejecting).



[/color][/size][/font]



Yes, she is stressing that She IS a virgin.


She says nothing about any vow (or the content thereof). She says nothing about how often she intents to have sex during Her entire lifetime on Earth - especially to the level of highest certainty (dogma).


You are assuming that the future tense applies to the moment of Her death (or was it undeath). And again, your chief "problem" seems to be with CATHOLIC Tradition regarding this verse, namely that the Incarnation (the fulfillment of this prophecy - prophecies always given in the future tense) and the Annunication happened TOGETHER, on the same day. You want this to say (dogmatically, to the highest level of certainty) that this fulfillment will be months or years or decades in the future. The verse does not STATE (or even remotely imply) that your Catholic Tradition is wrong and that you were in error to celebrate the Annunciation on March 25.






True, so it must be hard for you to state - to the highest level of certainty possible - that the text indicates She thought this would be years or decades in the future (and thus the Catholic Tradition is wrong).

Again, while the text says NOTHING to remotely indicate that Mary took some vow and the content of such, and says NOTHING about how often Mary intends (much less DID or DID NOT) have sex during the course of Her entire pilgramage on Earth. NOTHING to support the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever. IMO, the ancient Catholic Tradition you are (curiously) so dismissing and rejecting is a far more likely situation, textually. And if so, then it ONLY speaks of Her virgin status ON THAT DAY - not on the day of Her death (or undeath - depending on your dogma on that).


[/color][/size][/font]

Grammar is essential for the coherence of language; the tense of the verb in the passage under your consideration does not support your opinion.

 

[Philothei]

Plus Christ did have "step brothers" since Joseph was married before and was a widower we know James is called "αδελφοθεος" and we know that from the Fathers intepretation that Christ was "only son" of God. So that would mean that he was a stepbrother. Christ could not have brothers or then he would not be "only begoten son of God" since he was man and God. He could ONLY be only begotten from His Father and that would "confuse" the incarnational part of Christ. Who he would be ONLY son in his divinity but not his humanity.... Since Christ is both that could not be.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Philothei -

Why you prefer to use the term "no sex ever" instead of virgin Josiah?

1. What confirmation do you have, to the highest level of certainty, that I will die (or never die) as a virgin? How, exactly, do you know that to the greatest level of certainty? And why (pray tell) is MY personal sex life a matter of highest importance possible to you? Should it be a matter of highest importance to me how often you have (or will have) sex?



2. Now, if you want to say "no sex" instead of "virgin" - of course, that's exactly what the word means. Not that it should be a matter of highest importance possible to the world's 7 billion people, but I (the only one who could), I will tell you - as of this date, I've had no sex. I can't say that will apply on the day I die and I don't claim that that is a matter of highest importance possible to the world's 7 billion people.


3. Now, how does your question confirm - to the highest level possible - that it is a matter of greatest importance to all 7 billion people on Earth (this matter of how often people have sex) and a matter of greatest certainty possible that Mary Had No Sex EVER? Lost me....


4. Since you want to talk about how often posters here have had sex, how often have you had sex? How often will you until you die (or don't)?





Thanks! Blessings!


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Joseph was married before and was a widower

1. Your documentation of that?

2. You seem to have two things entirely confused. There is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Brothers." The issue here is "Mary Had No Sex Ever." Unless you are able to provide biological evidence that every single act of marital intimacy results in a child named in the Bible, then it is irrelevant whether Mary had any other children mentioned in the Bible. I think you know that.






.