Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

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.

Exactly.

So, how does this prove - to the highest level possible - that Mary had no sex ever - up to and including the second of Her death (or was it undeath?).

But she couldn't expect the conception to occur until after her betrothal

Supply the documentation for that....

And why you reject the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened ON THE SAME DAY.

Yes, she is stressing that She IS a virgin.


​

​

Exactly!

Thus, She is not saying, "I will die - or not - as one who has had no sex ever because I made a vow to that effect." Sorry. The verse is not confirming that Mary Had No Sex EVER and that She made a vow to that effect. You seem to be agreeing with me - and yet insisting that I'm wrong.

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.

Your ability to read Her mind is interesting....

But I remind you again of ancient Catholic Tradition - that the Incarnation and the Annunication happened ON THE SAME DAY. It seems far more likely to me that She was right, that She understood, that She is actually giving credence to that ancient Tradition. "I AM a virgin."

You seem to miss, She does not say, "I will die - or not - a virgin!"

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.

In other words, there's nothing in the text that so confirms or teaches or substantiates. Got it.


Actually, such would almost surely have required the future perfect. IMO, actually, what is "implied" here (and thus cannot be dogma) is the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened together, on the same day, and that somehow, Mary knew (or suspected) that.

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.

... and nor does Mary's reply.

There goes your entire apologetic.






The time is indefinite at the moment he gives Mary the good news.

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).
​

For the angel does not say "You have conceived." (present perfect).

1. Prophecies are almost always giving in the future tense.

2. As you keep agreeing, the future would be accurate for anytime in the future - even a micro second.

3. There's nothing there about any "vow" - much less to the highest level of certainty possible. There's nothing there about the death (or undeath) of Mary - much less to the highest level possible.

4. Mary's responding in the PRESENT means, as you've now agreed several times, that Mary IS a virgin. She does not say, "I made a vow to not have sex even once up to and through the moment of my death - or will it be undeath?"


IF you were to do as my Catholic teachers did and insist that the dogma of 2 denominations does not CONFLICT with this verse, that (however stretched) it's POSSIBLE to hold to the dogma and take this verse literally, I'd not disagree with you. But it seems beyond the realm of credible to say, "this verse teaches - to the highest level of certainty - that Mary made a vow to never have sex and that Her statement here is that She not only intends but it is dogmatic fact that She died (or didn't) having never had sex even once" - well, I just find that entirely incredible (and amazing).




.

 

[justinangel]

.





Exactly.

So, how does this prove - to the highest level possible - that Mary had no sex ever - up to and including the second of Her death (or was it undeath?).





Supply the documentation for that....

And why you reject the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened ON THE SAME DAY.






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



Thus, She is not saying, "I will die - or not - as one who has had no sex ever because I made a vow to that effect." Sorry. The verse is not confirming that Mary Had No Sex EVER and that She made a vow to that effect. You seem to be agreeing with me - and yet insisting that I'm wrong.





Your ability to read Her mind is interesting....

But I remind you again of ancient Catholic Tradition - that the Incarnation and the Annunication happened ON THE SAME DAY. It seems far more likely to me that She was right, that She understood, that She is actually giving credence to that ancient Tradition. "I AM a virgin."

You seem to miss, She does not say, "I will die - or not - a virgin!"










In other words, there's nothing in the text that so confirms or teaches or substantiates. Got it.


Actually, such would almost surely have required the future perfect. IMO, actually, what is "implied" here (and thus cannot be dogma) is the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened together, on the same day, and that somehow, Mary knew (or suspected) that.







... and nor does Mary's reply.

There goes your entire apologetic.






The time is indefinite at the moment he gives Mary the good news.






1. Prophecies are almost always giving in the future tense.

2. As you keep agreeing, the future would be accurate for anytime in the future - even a micro second.

3. There's nothing there about any "vow" - much less to the highest level of certainty possible. There's nothing there about the death (or undeath) of Mary - much less to the highest level possible.

4. Mary's responding in the PRESENT means, as you've now agreed several times, that Mary IS a virgin. She does not say, "I made a vow to not have sex even once up to and through the moment of my death - or will it be undeath?"


IF you were to do as my Catholic teachers did and insist that the dogma of 2 denominations does not CONFLICT with this verse, that (however stretched) it's POSSIBLE to hold to the dogma and take this verse literally, I'd not disagree with you. But it seems beyond the realm of credible to say, "this verse teaches - to the highest level of certainty - that Mary made a vow to never have sex and that Her statement here is that She not only intends but it is dogmatic fact that She died (or didn't) having never had sex even once" - well, I just find that entirely incredible (and amazing).
.

You make absolutely no sense.

 

[justinangel]

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.

The Church Fathers defended the faith against heresies and committed themselves to defend the Apotolic Tradition of the faith as the valid successors of the Apostles. They served to make the written word much more explicit and definite in how it should be understood.


And true Christians don't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary to be saved, just as they don't fear sinning against God for the sake of avoiding eternal punishment.

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Church Fathers defended the faith against heresies

Sorry, I just don't see how that comment supplies the confirmation, to the very highest level of certainty possible, that Mary made a vow (and if so, what was the particular content of that) and that She died (or had an undeath) at which moment She was a virgin. And that it is a "heresy" to not affirm such.



.

 

[Thekla]

California Josiah,

Perhaps the passage covering Mary's knowledge of when in the future the prophecy would be fulfilled should be provided in support of your argument.

For further support, you could investigate the average length of time for prophesied births of the Old Testament to occur (from announcement to birth) as Mary would likely be familiar with the history on the matter.

A supplemental investigation on the use of the term "idou" (Old and New Testaments) could be instructive as well.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

California Josiah, Perhaps the passage covering Mary's knowledge of when in the future the prophecy would be fulfilled should be provided in support of your argument.

What argument? I have no position, remember? Of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist, there are 2 (maybe 3) that have ANY formal view at all on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - on anything related to Mary and sex, one way or the other. One of those is yours. You claim its an issue of Dogma. The "ball" my esteemed friend is in your court.


IF Her statement (I AM a virgin) means, to the highest level of certainty possible, "I will die - or undergo undeath - with having had no sex ever," then is some confirmation of that suggested?


The angel pronounces a prophecy (nearly always given in the FUTURE tense). As all have agree, such could just as easily be one microsecond in the future as it could be at the very moment of Her death (or undeath - depending on your view there). It is indefinite WE ALL AGREE, thus irrelevant to the issue of this thread or the points made about it. The MOST you can of Mary's reponse (and it's really, really stretching it) is that it's indefinite (it COULD - well, maybe - mean future even though it's stated in the PRESENT tense) but how does that reveal that this verse supplies the substantiation that Mary made some vow, the exact content of said vow, and that at the second of Her death (or undeath), She had had no sex EVER? How do two (at best) indefinite verbs supply the confirmation of this vow, it's content, and the dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER? You seem to keep revealing how the text DOESN'T support it, not that it does.





.

 

[Kristos]

What argument? I have no position, remember? Of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist, there are 2 (maybe 3) that have ANY formal view at all on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - on anything related to Mary and sex, one way or the other. One of those is yours. You claim its an issue of Dogma. The "ball" my esteemed friend is in your court.


IF Her statement (I AM a virgin) means, to the highest level of certainty possible, "I will die - or undergo undeath - with having had no sex ever," then is some confirmation of that suggested?


The angel pronounces a prophecy (nearly always given in the FUTURE tense). As all have agree, such could just as easily be one microsecond in the future as it could be at the very moment of Her death (or undeath - depending on your view there). It is indefinite WE ALL AGREE, thus irrelevant to the issue of this thread or the points made about it. The MOST you can of Mary's reponse (and it's really, really stretching it) is that it's indefinite (it COULD - well, maybe - mean future even though it's stated in the PRESENT tense) but how does that reveal that this verse supplies the substantiation that Mary made some vow, the exact content of said vow, and that at the second of Her death (or undeath), She had had no sex EVER? How do two (at best) indefinite verbs supply the confirmation of this vow, it's content, and the dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER? You seem to keep revealing how the text DOESN'T support it, not that it does.





.

Perhaps your post-modern philosophy is clouding your view. Read "Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis.

 

[Miser]

In a Jewish marriage, it would have been seen as very very abnormal for a woman to be married and have no relations with her husband. Why are people so against the idea that after the birth of Christ, Mary would have been committed to her husband and bare his genetic children.

People seem to have differing opinions on the translation of one word "brother" well, there are other passages as well distinctly saying Mary and Joseph has sex


When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. (Matthew 1:24-25)


This is pretty self explanatory. Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. They were married, and she would have been expected to do her duty to her husband.


With this and all the other passages regarding brothers and sisters, which are apparently all mistranslated, how can you not see the had intercourse.

Im not even sure why this matters at all.

 

[Thekla]

What argument? I have no position, remember? Of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist, there are 2 (maybe 3) that have ANY formal view at all on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - on anything related to Mary and sex, one way or the other. One of those is yours. You claim its an issue of Dogma. The "ball" my esteemed friend is in your court.

I assumed your position of remaining agnostic must have some basis in Scriptural evidence.

IF Her statement (I AM a virgin) means, to the highest level of certainty possible, "I will die - or undergo undeath - with having had no sex ever," then is some confirmation of that suggested?

I've asked for your analysis.

The angel pronounces a prophecy (nearly always given in the FUTURE tense). As all have agree, such could just as easily be one microsecond in the future as it could be at the very moment of Her death (or undeath - depending on your view there). It is indefinite WE ALL AGREE, thus irrelevant to the issue of this thread or the points made about it. The MOST you can of Mary's reponse (and it's really, really stretching it) is that it's indefinite (it COULD - well, maybe - mean future even though it's stated in the PRESENT tense) but how does that reveal that this verse supplies the substantiation that Mary made some vow, the exact content of said vow, and that at the second of Her death (or undeath), She had had no sex EVER? How do two (at best) indefinite verbs supply the confirmation of this vow, it's content, and the dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER? You seem to keep revealing how the text DOESN'T support it, not that it does.

The content of her response ( indicating an ongoing state of 'being' of not knowing a man) to the prophecy of a future event re: the birth of a child, where the method of conception for the child has not yet been revealed, and prior prophecies in Holy Scripture (ie known to the Jews) re: the birth of a child do not indicate an immediate conception, as one betrothed indicate that her announcement in the present tense (which as before indicates an ongoing "state") denies the possibility that she considered her affiliation with Joseph to result in offspring.

In addition, Mary assents to Gabriel's announcement of God's will after the method of conception for the prophesied child has been described by Gabriel.

As for the "highest certainty" standard, you have not described what such a standard demands (per what you have in mind for the meaning of "highest certainty), thus any response on my part we be to an imaginary standard. Thus, could you describe what sort of evidence you have in mind ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Read "Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis.

You evidently are not aware that C.S. Lewis is not a poster here at CF. IF he has supplied the confirmation that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary made some vow, what is the content of said vow, and that She had no sex ever - then perhaps you can copy and paste that to here or present it yourself.





.

 

[Thekla]

In a Jewish marriage, it would have been seen as very very abnormal for a woman to be married and have no relations with her husband. Why are people so against the idea that after the birth of Christ, Mary would have been committed to her husband and bare his genetic children.

People seem to have differing opinions on the translation of one word "brother" well, there are other passages as well distinctly saying Mary and Joseph has sex


When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. (Matthew 1:24-25)


This is pretty self explanatory. Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. They were married, and she would have been expected to do her duty to her husband.


With this and all the other passages regarding brothers and sisters, which are apparently all mistranslated, how can you not see the had intercourse.

Im not even sure why this matters at all.

If I may explain - the term "adelphos" does not only mean "brother", but in the Bible is used to describe over half a dozen relationships, and in contemporary (Hellenistic) Greek about half a dozen more. Thus, the use of the term cannot be used to determine what the relationship "adelphos" actually is, as no further description is provided in Scripture.

Dedicated chastity to God, abstention to this end, and chastity following a deep encounter with God, were not unknown in Judaism.
(See, for example, extended periods of abstention for Torah study, Moses' chastity following his encounter with God - in Midrash.)

The Greek term ews (translated "until") does not indicate a reversal of condition. See, for example, 2 Samuel 6:23 in the LXX:
"Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (ews) the day of her death."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If I may explain - the term "adelphos" does not only mean "brother", but in the Bible is used to describe over half a dozen relationships, and in contemporary (Hellenistic) Greek about half a dozen more. Thus, the use of the term cannot be used to determine what the relationship "adelphos" actually is, as no further description is provided in Scripture.

While it IS true that the named existence of "blood" siblings of Jesus via Mary would seem to indicate the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER in problematic at best, the reverse is not true. There is (and never has been) a Dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs." The Dogma is about Mary - not Jesus, and is about sex - not siblings. Unless you are willing to provide the biological evidence that EVERY act of marital intimacy results in a child named in the Bible, then your point that it's POSSIBLE that Mary had no other children named in the Bible seems altogether irrelevant.

Dedicated chastity to God, abstention to this end, and chastity following a deep encounter with God, were not unknown in Judaism.

True. Prostitution wasn't either, but just because something isn't entirely unheard of doesn't make it a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that such is the case specifically with Mary. I think your apologetic here is entirely irrelevant and of no value to the issue at hand.





.

 

[Philothei]

While it IS true that the named existence of "blood" siblings of Jesus via Mary would seem to indicate the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER in problematic at best, the reverse is not true. There is (and never has been) a Dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs." The Dogma is about Mary - not Jesus, and is about sex - not siblings. Unless you are willing to provide the biological evidence that EVERY act of marital intimacy results in a child named in the Bible, then your point that it's POSSIBLE that Mary had no other children named in the Bible seems altogether irrelevant.







True. Prostitution wasn't either, but just because something isn't entirely unheard of doesn't make it a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that such is the case specifically with Mary. I think your apologetic here is entirely irrelevant and of no value to the issue at hand.





.

CJ if Mary had more kids would Christ still be ONLY begotten Son?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ if Mary had more kids would Christ still be ONLY begotten Son?

I don't know. But you seem to have missed my point: IF Mary had no other children specifically named and indicated as such in the Bible, does that ergo mean it is a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? Yes? No? My parents have good friends, older than they, married for many decades. They have never had any children AT ALL - and certainly not as specifically mentioned in the Bible as being theirs and the result of sexual union. QUESTION: Is it therefore a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that the wife and/or the husband have had no sex ever - indeed he and/or she will have none through and until the moment of their death? Yes or No?



There is no dogma (known to me) ANYWHERE (that I'm aware of) of "Jesus Had No Siblings." We're discussing the confirmation that Mary made a vow to God and the content of such, and that it is a matter of highest importance and of greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Dorothea]

Well, I think that Thekla, Philothei, narnia, and justinangel have made very good, clear, and logical comments and defenses to the ever-virginity of Mary. It seems clear as day to me. I don't know what kind of wall is being put up for our friends here, or if it's just sheer stubborness.

 

[LinuxUser]

CJ if Mary had more kids would Christ still be ONLY begotten Son?

If I may. Yes because if Mary had children later that doesn't not effect Christ conception and birth. Really it's not a problem either way if she did or didn't after Christ

 

[Philothei]

In a Jewish marriage, it would have been seen as very very abnormal for a woman to be married and have no relations with her husband. Why are people so against the idea that after the birth of Christ, Mary would have been committed to her husband and bare his genetic children.

People seem to have differing opinions on the translation of one word "brother" well, there are other passages as well distinctly saying Mary and Joseph has sex


When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. (Matthew 1:24-25)


This is pretty self explanatory. Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after the birth of Jesus. They were married, and she would have been expected to do her duty to her husband.


With this and all the other passages regarding brothers and sisters, which are apparently all mistranslated, how can you not see the had intercourse.

Im not even sure why this matters at all.

I agree with your last sentence ! Bottom line why it makes a difference to the ones who do not believe it? I always thought that the ones who do not should have arrived to that conclusion after personal investigation and reflection as "faith" matters have usually to do with both.
I cannot blame you for not believing as you might not think of it as important. And that is ok with me personally I am NOT even try to persuade you for the opposite. I am just defending my faith. I think it is when we hit each other over the head and start blaming that it is not ok.

Having said that I think that the "mistranslation" is not in the end of the Fathers and the councils but the 200 year old tradition of the Protestant Church that "investigated" this tradition and supposetely proved it wrong. Brother is not translated as Adelfos In ALL places of the Bible. That is for sure and we brought about evidence for it. The "new her not until" means to say that Joseph NEVER touched her thus he was not responsible for the "pregnancy" of Theotokos. It does not mean that he knew her afterwards as some think.... Because as St. JC states very nicely how was the virgin enstrusted to John by Christ at the cross...If Christ had siblings then he would not have entrusted her to his brothers? According to Jewish law that would be the way it works...Widows are entrusted to their sons. For luck of one John was the one to take care of Theotokos.

page 63 (bottom)

http://deaconpreacher.yolasite.com/resources/St Chrysostom_Homilies on the Gospel of St Matthew.pdf

 

[Philothei]

It is not the sex what it is about CJ ... Incarnation is the problem and that is what the whole Chrisitan Church has believed for 2,000 years

 

[Philothei]

If I may. Yes because if Mary had children later that doesn't not effect Christ conception and birth. Really it's not a problem either way if she did or didn't after Christ

So Christ would be only begotten son in His divinity and NOT in his humanity?

 

[LinuxUser]

So Christ would be only begotten son in His divinity and NOT in his humanity?

I don't believe I ever said that. What I did say was that after Christ was born it wouldn't matter if Mary had other children I never denied Christ full Humanity and Divinity, nor will I ever. If in fact Mary had other children after than it has no bearing. You seem to be saying now that if Mary wasn't forever a virgin than Christ could not be Christ. I never said that