Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Philothei]

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]

It does not need to be in black and white as the tense is enough to support EV. I would personally take the opinion of the Fathers over some "interpretation" of the last 250 years. Evolution in dogma is not my cup of tea... Certain truths were well established by the 3rd century AD. And that was all a defense of orthodoxy not "new dogmas"... Still the Fathers and the councils could be proven wrong at any time but will take the whole church to revoke them. Until this takes place there is no reason to re-invent the wheel as dogmatically the EV is a sound doctrine and it is perfectly rational according to the incarnation of the Logos, Christ.

The reason we cannot say about the Dormition/ Assumption of the Theotokos is that although we have not found her relics there is still a possibility and a speculation... Thus we cannot dogmatize it. I do not think it is important for us to know. We know that Elias was assumed into heaven so I do not think it is impossible... *sorry for going off topic but this is an example * but still we do not know for sure.

 

[Philothei]

.


Philothei -






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





.

Apply that to the Trinity and the same you just have to trust your sources

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

Right. So, the point several (including you??) made that the 381 edition of the Creed states that Mary Had No Sex Ever is wrong. I agree. It doesn't say that. And what it does say refers to the Incarnation, not the death (?) of Mary. The point was to stress the divinity as well as humanity of Christ, not that Mary died (or didn't) a virgin. There goes that apologetic.




.

 

[Philothei]

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.






.

True it is not dogma but most Fathers agree to that.
I was responding to a side question presented from a poster it relates to EV as the argument is... oh he had brothers that is the "proof" for Mary's relations with Joseph... It is NOT so though. So it is related

Do you need biological evidence that Christ was a virgin? No you go by what is written and by faith in the scripture that BTW is NOT all that was said and done of the incranation. It is in the scripture period!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Philothei -






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)?




.

You didn't reply to ANY of the 4 things you quoted from me.

IF you want to run from this topic and discuss another dogma, you are to start another thread. And remember, it is two denominations that INSIST - to the highest level possible - that it is a matter of greatest importance and certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The issue here is this "vow" and the confirmation you have of this tidbit of Mary's personal life and why it is that how often couples have sex is a matter of highest importance to you. I hope you'll reply to the 4 points you quoted from me. nd that you'll not run from the topic and try to divert the thread to an entirely different dogma (in hopes of getting the focus off this one?).






.

 

[Philothei]

You didn't reply to ANY of the 4 things you quoted from me.

IF you want to run from this topic and discuss another dogma, you are to start another thread. And remember, it is two denominations that INSIST - to the highest level possible - that it is a matter of greatest importance and certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER. The issue here is this "vow" and the confirmation you have of this tidbit of Mary's personal life and why it is that how often couples have sex is a matter of highest importance to you. I hope you'll reply to the 4 points you quoted from me. nd that you'll not run from the topic and try to divert the thread to an entirely different dogma (in hopes of getting the focus off this one?).






.

You quoted only my emoticon....... I do not want to run away but you did not answer me either on St. Athanasius. Have a beautiful day CJ What you say has little to do with the topic either. I do not doubt EV you do that is what is the bottom line. You disagree. I guess St. Athanasious had a say on Mary's virginity as were the 2 biggest churches of Christendum...For 2,000 years now. Why should I believe that I should have doubts NOW since that has been disputed the last 200 years? Like I said would you dispute also the Trinity? It is NOT in the Bible also.

 

[LOCO]

Do you need biological evidence that Christ was a virgin? No you go by what is written and by faith in the scripture that BTW is NOT all that was said and done of the incranation. It is in the scripture period!

Excellent point Philothei.

There is nothing in Scripture that says Christ was a virgin. We believe in his priesthood and celibacy because of Sacred Tradition i.e. the Apostles taught it to their congregation and so on to the ECF who in turn taught it.

If you challenge Sacred Tradition then you can run with that line about Christ's priesthood and celibacy a little further and you have a Dan Brown novel, where Jesus marries Mary Magdalene and she bears his children.

In the early years Christians believed in Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity it was just a given, like Christs death and ressurrection, because there was only one church from the Apostles till the schism. Even after the schism this belief in her Perpetual Virginity was maintained in all the Churches.

There was no need to defend it, even Martin Luthur loved Mary, venerated her and believed in her Perpetual Virginity till his death.

It is only recently that it has had to be defended.

I don't understand those who say it has to be SOLELY in Scripture and has to be written exactly this way to be considered a valid doctrine. That is a very narrow and shallow viewpoint. Sacred Tradition is equal to Sacred Scripture.

Why limit Christ to words in a book?

 

[bbbbbbb]

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)

He did, as evidenced by five very explicit passages in three of the Gospels. However, those passages have been explained away as not meaning at all what they actually say, in various threads on this topic both on this board and on the General Theology board.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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...

Yeah, a mistranslation of the KJV and every other Bible translated into English including those authorized by the Orthodox Church and the RCC. As they say in Italy, "What a bigga mistaka to maka!"

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Strangely though, every single translator of the Bible into English has consistently translated adelphos in the five passages in question as brothers and sisters. Methinks there is a vast conspiracy afoot here.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

And how does the objective observer know that Joseph was married before and was a widower? How do we know that Joseph and Mary did not have children after the birth of Jesus Christ?

 

[Thekla]

He did, as evidenced by five very explicit passages in three of the Gospels. However, those passages have been explained away as not meaning at all what they actually say, in various threads on this topic both on this board and on the General Theology board.

Hi, bbbbbbb -

not quite accurate.

Actually, it has been explained that the term "adelphos" is not a straight shot translation to the English "brother".

Again, the term encompasses at least half a dozen different relationships in Biblical usage, with contemporary non-Biblical usage covering an additional approximately half a dozen more.

As I have pointed out before

This is not a matter of "explained away", it is a matter of accuracy.
To claim that adelphos = (blood) sibling is inaccurate.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It does not need to be in black and white as the tense is enough to support EV. I would personally take the opinion of the Fathers over some "interpretation" of the last 250 years. Evolution in dogma is not my cup of tea... Certain truths were well established by the 3rd century AD. And that was all a defense of orthodoxy not "new dogmas"... Still the Fathers and the councils could be proven wrong at any time but will take the whole church to revoke them. Until this takes place there is no reason to re-invent the wheel as dogmatically the EV is a sound doctrine and it is perfectly rational according to the incarnation of the Logos, Christ.

The reason we cannot say about the Dormition/ Assumption of the Theotokos is that although we have not found her relics there is still a possibility and a speculation... Thus we cannot dogmatize it. I do not think it is important for us to know. We know that Elias was assumed into heaven so I do not think it is impossible... *sorry for going off topic but this is an example * but still we do not know for sure.

As for myself, I would rather have the opinion of the Apostles and the authors of the Gospels than the Fathers. After all, they were actually first-hand eyewitnesses of those they wrote about.

If, in fact, it is a matter of personal salvation that one must affirm and believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, these folks must have really dropped the ball, because nowhere in the Bible is it stated that one must believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary to be saved. In fact, as CJ keeps reminding us, the marital life of Joseph and Mary is never discussed in those terms at all.

 

[Philothei]

Yeah, a mistranslation of the KJV and every other Bible translated into English including those authorized by the Orthodox Church and the RCC. As they say in Italy, "What a bigga mistaka to maka!"

I like that ...what a bigga...

There are some Bibles that they translate it as 'kinsmen" too instead of brother...

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude [/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif](the brother)[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif] of James. [/FONT]

Acts 1:14 [FONT=arial, sans-serif]All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren ([/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]adelphos[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]). [/FONT]

Acts 1:15 [FONT=arial, sans-serif]In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren ([/FONT]mathetes/disciples[FONT=arial, sans-serif]), said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty): [/FONT]

The gathering here of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]And the day following, he shewed himself to them when they were at strife and would have reconciled them in peace, saying: Men, ye are brethren ([/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]adelphos[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]). Why hurt you one another? [/FONT]

Acts 11:1
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]And the apostles and brethren ([/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]adelphos[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]), who were in Judea, heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. [/FONT]

Acts 13:15
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying: Ye men, brethren ([/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]adelphos[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]), if you have any word of exhortation to make to the people, speak. [/FONT]

Some examples of the usage of the same word... Brother is used randomely... the samie way like this one:

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Additionally, the word adelphos is used for [/FONT]

1. Male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2);
2. Male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23);
3. Male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
4. People of the same nationality (Acts 3:17);
5. Any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29);
6. Persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47);
7. Persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9);
8. Mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8);
9. Believers (Mt 23:8).

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Did Jesus have Siblings? - Apostolic Apologetics[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[narnia59]

Yeah, a mistranslation of the KJV and every other Bible translated into English including those authorized by the Orthodox Church and the RCC. As they say in Italy, "What a bigga mistaka to maka!"

"Brother" is not necessarily a mistranslation. People thinking the word "brother" in English is limited to only being siblings of the same parents is where the issue is. The English word "brother" can also mean a "kinsman" -- a much less limiting relationship than being children of the same parent or parents.


Definition of BROTHER

1
: a male who has the same parents as another or one parent in common with another

2
: one related to another by common ties or interests

3
: a fellow member —used as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations

4
: one of a type similar to another

5
a : kinsmanb : one who shares with another a common national or racial origin; especially : soul brother

6
a capitalized : a member of a congregation of men not in holy orders and usually in hospital or school work b : a member of a men's religious order who is not preparing for or is not ready for holy orders <a lay brother>

Brother - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


This is why trying to use the "brothers" of Jesus as explicit evidence that Mary gave birth to other children doesn't add up in either Greek or English. It is certainly not the same as referring to someone as the "son" or "daughter" of Mary, the mother of Jesus. That would be an explicit statement, and is what Scripture uses when asserting those types of definitive family relationships. Nonetheless, people often assert even where Scripture does not.

 

[Philothei]

As for myself, I would rather have the opinion of the Apostles and the authors of the Gospels than the Fathers. After all, they were actually first-hand eyewitnesses of those they wrote about.

If, in fact, it is a matter of personal salvation that one must affirm and believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, these folks must have really dropped the ball, because nowhere in the Bible is it stated that one must believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary to be saved. In fact, as CJ keeps reminding us, the marital life of Joseph and Mary is never discussed in those terms at all.

I aready explained the implication it has to incarnation. Mary gave birth to the ONLY begotten son of God. If she had relationship with Joseph then she would indeed could get pregnant...That if we see it logically will implicate that Christ would not be the ONLY begotten Son in his humanity and like I said before that could not be. So in order to safeguard him as the ONLY Begotten he had to be the only child of Mary. So logically it makes sense she had no relations and remained Ever Virgin as well as it does that she had no kids. No need to have it specifically spelled out in the Bible as the same way the virginity of Christ is not mentioned as these issues are ommited for they are kind of common knowledge and understanding... Nowhere it says that Christ was not a homosexual either does this mean that he "could" be one? It makes you wonder why in our days we need all this "evidence" in order to believe does it?

 

[Thekla]

I like that ...what a bigga...

There are some Bibles that they translate it as 'kinsmen" too instead of brother...

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]

Some examples of the usage of the same word... Brother is used randomely... the samie way like this one:



[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Did Jesus have Siblings? - Apostolic Apologetics[/FONT]
[/FONT]

To add:

in the NT it is also used to describe the relationship between Herod and Philip (different mothers), also Joseph and his 'brothers' (he had only one full blood sibling, Benjamin).

In the OT, it is used for: cousin, uncle, nephew, among other meanings.
In Leviticus, where a narrowed definition of the term is required, an additional descriptive is given. This method of narrowing the term to a single definition is also used in Plato, for example.

From the non-Biblical usage, one can also include neighbor, wife (adelphi), same nation, among other meanings.

 

[Thekla]

Strangely though, every single translator of the Bible into English has consistently translated adelphos in the five passages in question as brothers and sisters. Methinks there is a vast conspiracy afoot here.

How would you go about translating a term with such a broad swath of meanings ?

Or, would you think that the reader might work a little harder to arrive at an accurate understanding of the Holy Scriptures instead of grasping whatever might happen to come to mind ?

Also, why did the translators translate the term as "brother" when it is known that Herod and Phillip were step-brothers, likewise only Joseph and Benjamin were born of Rachel, yet the term "adelphos" is translated brother for those who were born of Leah ?

 

[narnia59]

Here's an interesting one for you bbbbbbb. It's from a site "proving" that the Bible cannot be the word of God because of its many errors.

Gen:14:12: And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

This would make Lot Abram’s nephew (as is also borne out by Gen. 11:27). If Lot was Abram’s nephew, then Lot could not possibly be Abram’s brother as Gen. 14:14 claims.

Can the Bible be God's Word?. bible,ethics,atheism,fundamentalism,truth,can the bible be god's word,cure for fundatmentalism

So how would you respond to their claim?

 

[justinangel]

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 orIncarnation 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).

The angel says "You will conceive", so Mary can conceive the child at any time in the future, including the same day or hour from this moment on. But she couldn't expect the conception to occur until after her betrothal while unaware of its actual supernatural quality. According to Catholic Tradition, Mary had conceived the child as soon as she pronounced the words "Let it be done to me". It makes no difference when the child will be conceived, because Mary is not concerned about the time of the event, but its manner. Thus there's no need for me to reject or dismiss anything on my part. I adhere to this tradition as a faithful Catholic. I'm sorry that you're unable to arrive at the same reasonable conclusion.

[/color][/size][/font]
Yes, she is stressing that She IS a virgin.

Exactly! She wouldn't have stressed that she is presently a virgin if she were told that she would conceive the child at some unspecific time in the future; not if she had intended to have relations with Joseph. If she thought the angel had implied that she would conceive a child by Joseph before they were legally and morally entitled to, she would have asked "How shall this be, since I am betrothed." In this case, the verb would denote an instant in time and suppose a change in a state of affair. I doubt Luke's primary intention is to relate Mary's psychological and emotional state by having her question the integrity of the angel who would never make such an insinuation. He is acknowledging a Marian tradition of his time (1:1-4).

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

Mary certainly implies that she has made a vow and that she intends never to have relations with Joseph. Dogma makes explict what has been implicitly revealed in Scripture and Tradition for the purpose of a unity of faith. For this reason Christ established one universal apostolic Church and sent one Paraclete to guide her in all truth (Jn 16:12-13) until the end of time.

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.

Again, the angel gives no indication when the conception will happen. The time is indefinite at the moment he gives Mary the good news.

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).

At this point in Scripture all we know is that Mary understood she would conceive the child at some point in the future. She must have known when that time arrived through approximate physical sensations. Catholics believe the precise moment was when she pronounced her fiat. Mary could have had a graced experience at that moment when she conceived the child, making her aware of having just conceived Jesus. Scripture does not say. But the experiental operation of the Holy Spirit in time mustn't be confined to the written word in order to be actual.

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).

The text says ALL! The simple present in active form denotes a permanent state, not an instant of time. For the angel does not say "You have conceived." (present perfect). If he did, then obviously Mary would have been concerned about having lost what she thought was her present state of virginity. Our argument has been recycled again. Let the readers judge for themselves. I'll respond again if I don't have to repeat myself.

Pax Christu
J.A.