Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

I'm not SURE as to all the theological "stuff" in this statement in the Creed, but, IMO, with all sincere respect, it's off topic. THIS thread is about a vow Mary made, the precise content thereof, and the Dogma that Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's about sex, not sibs. Mary, not Jesus. It's "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary."


Again, unless you are willing to biologically document that every single act of marital intimacy results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible as such, then I don't see the connection and it seems a bit of a hi-jack. Yes, the REVERSE is true (and thus, IMO, okay for those who question this Dogma to bring up) since IF Mary had other children after Jesus, that certainly would suggest that the Dogma is not true. But the reverse is entirely irrelevant and IMO inappropriate for this thread. And, I note, to MY knowledge, there has never been a Dogma anywhere, in any denomination at any time of "Jesus Had No Sibs."



Now, did you have something addition to bring to the table to prove this vow, it's content, and this dogma of 2 (maybe 3) denominations? If so, I'm very, very curious and would love to read it!



Thank you!


Blessings!


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

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.

Yes, you've said this before.

However, I was responding to a post which mentioned "adelphos" (as translated), thus my response was pertinent to that point.

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.

Many acts of marital intimacy result in children who are not named in the Bible -- the majority, in fact.

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.

Talking asses, too.
Do you mean that things which are unusual are irrelevant ?

 

[justinangel]

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.
.

It isn't meant to confirm anything about my faith. I've already confirmed its truth. And it is a positive heresy to publicly contest it. In fact, it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit who guides the one visible Church in all truth.

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Talking asses, too.
Do you mean that things which are unusual are irrelevant ?

To the issue of this thread (what is to be the subject of our posts), yes. That there was a case of a talking ass is not confirmation that it is a matter of highest certainty of Truth and greatest importance that Mary made a vow, the content of that vow, and that Mary Had No Sex EVER, don't you agree?






.

 

[washedagain]

To the issue of this thread (what is to be the subject of our posts), yes. That there was a case of a talking ass is not confirmation that it is a matter of highest certainty of Truth and greatest importance that Mary made a vow, the content of that vow, and that Mary Had No Sex EVER, don't you agree?






.

Well, I certainly agree... I still have yet to read any evidence that there is a vow within the Jewish community, that a young woman who would make a such a vow would get engaged regardless, or that Mary made such a vow.

Lets see how long this will go with vain words and absolutely no support of evidence.

 

[Thekla]

To the issue of this thread (what is to be the subject of our posts), yes. That there was a case of a talking ass is not confirmation that it is a matter of highest certainty of Truth and greatest importance that Mary made a vow, the content of that vow, and that Mary Had No Sex EVER, don't you agree?

Your statement seemed to find its conceptual ground of:
unusual = irrelevant.
This standard would eradicate the authenticity of many events recorded in Holy Scripture.

The issue of the thread is a "vow" (euxe); vows are amply demonstrated throughout the Holy Scriptures.

The subtext is made up in part of Jewish history and community; the subtext includes abstinence following a deep encounter with God (ex. Moses, who abstained from sex though married).

Could you provide an explanation of what you have in mind when you say "highest certainty" ? Otherwise, one cannot determine what evidence would meet your standard.

 

[Thekla]

Well, I certainly agree... I still have yet to read any evidence that there is a vow within the Jewish community, that a young woman who would make a such a vow would get engaged regardless, or that Mary made such a vow.

Lets see how long this will go with vain words and absolutely no support of evidence.

Numbers 30
the Nazarite vow (available to both men and women) are two examples.
There are of course many more (The prophetess Anna in the NT, for example.)

 

[washedagain]

Numbers 30
the Nazarite vow (available to both men and women) are two examples.
There are of course many more (The prophetess Anna in the NT, for example.)

OK....1. please demonstrate that Mary made this vow, 2. that one who is single would make this vow and still intend to get engaged in the future.

 

[Thekla]

OK....1. please demonstrate that Mary made this vow, 2. that one who is single would make this vow and still intend to get engaged in the future.

1. see the Greek tense use in the Lukan passages.
2. 6 “If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her." Numbers 30

 

[washedagain]

1. see the Greek tense use in the Lukan passages.
2. 6 “If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her." Numbers 30

1. I don't see anything about a vow in Luke

2. the passage that you have given me does not address a virgin taking this vow and anticipating staying a perpetual virgin anticipating marriage.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Numbers 30
the Nazarite vow (available to both men and women) are two examples.
There are of course many more (The prophetess Anna in the NT, for example.)

We're all waiting for you to document (to the level of dogma) that Mary specifically made such a vow and what was the content thereof.

And that it is a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Not that it COULD be She had no other children, not that it's POSSIBLE She might have been a perpetual virgin (since "with God ALL THINGS are possible"), not that those who have spread this tidbit about Her private marital life centuries after Her death said it's true, not "loving marital intimacies make the wife but not husband impure and poluted and we can't believe Mary would do.... THAT." Nope. It is the stance of 2 (maybe 3) denominations (out of the 50,000 + some Catholics insist exist) are the ONLY ones with an official teachings about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. It's DOGMA there. IF truth about this One so loved matters, IF truth in Dogma matters, where is the substantiation?


We're waiting. For something of a nature you'd accept from a Protestant or LDS or other sharing a view you don't embrace (after all, an apologetic you insist must be rejected is one you'd ask us to reject).






.

 

[Thekla]

1. I don't see anything about a vow in Luke

From my previous post:

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.

The evidence is not an explicit statement, but contained in Luke's choice of the present tense (in Greek, an ongoing/continual state). Greek tenses are not conceptually the same as English.

2. the passage that you have given me does not address a virgin taking this vow and anticipating staying a perpetual virgin anticipating marriage.

It addresses all vows.
Your concern is with a particular sort of vow which falls under the praxis for any vow.

 

[washedagain]

From my previous post:
The evidence is not an explicit statement, but contained in Luke's choice of the present tense (in Greek, an ongoing/continual state). Greek tenses are not conceptually the same as English.

It addresses all vows.
Your concern is with a particular sort of vow which falls under the praxis for any vow.

And yet you are unable to demonstrate that Mary made ANY vow.

You cannot provide one instance of Jewish virgins making such vows of perpetual virginity with the intent of getting engaged and Jewish men seeking to marry perpetual virgins.

 

[Thekla]

And yet you are unable to demonstrate that Mary made ANY vow.

Again, I stated that there is no explicit statement of a vow.
What Luke does make clear, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is that Mary had no intention to "know a man".

You cannot provide one instance of Jewish virgins making such vows of perpetual virginity with the intent of getting engaged and Jewish men seeking to marry perpetual virgins.

You seem to have adopted the standard of "unusual = impossible"; this standard undermines most of what is recorded as event in the Holy Scripture.

 

[Thekla]

We're all waiting for you to document (to the level of dogma) that Mary specifically made such a vow and what was the content thereof.

It did meet the standard for dogma.
Your standard for dogma must be different; could you describe your standard for dogma ?

And that it is a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Not that it COULD be She had no other children, not that it's POSSIBLE She might have been a perpetual virgin (since "with God ALL THINGS are possible"), not that those who have spread this tidbit about Her private marital life centuries after Her death said it's true, not "loving marital intimacies make the wife but not husband impure and poluted and we can't believe Mary would do.... THAT." Nope. It is the stance of 2 (maybe 3) denominations (out of the 50,000 + some Catholics insist exist) are the ONLY ones with an official teachings about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. It's DOGMA there. IF truth about this One so loved matters, IF truth in Dogma matters, where is the substantiation?

Your statement seems to reflect your tacit standard of "unusual = irrelevant", but even then requires a selective understanding of usual - ie number of denominations vs. number of Christians.
To wit, your standard (unusual = irrelevant) is inconsistent with what is evidenced in the Holy Scriptures and also inconsistently applied.

It is hard if not impossible to respond to such meandering.

We're waiting. For something of a nature you'd accept from a Protestant or LDS or other sharing a view you don't embrace (after all, an apologetic you insist must be rejected is one you'd ask us to reject).

Could you restate this ?
I can't follow what precisely it is you mean in this sentence.

 

[washedagain]

Again, I stated that there is no explicit statement of a vow.
What Luke does make clear, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is that Mary had no intention to "know a man".


You seem to have adopted the standard of "unusual = impossible"; this standard undermines most of what is recorded as event in the Holy Scripture.

I am simply asking for evidence since none is recorded in Holy Scripture.

 

[Thekla]

I am simply asking for evidence since none is recorded in Holy Scripture.

The Greek tenses used in the Lukan passages concomitant with the order and content of the exchange between Gabriel and Mary is evidence from Holy Scripture.

The statement is there, but it demands that the reader think not in English language, but in Hellenistic Greek. Ie., one must be attentive and remember that the Gospel of Luke was not written in English and thus is more fully and accurately understood in its original linguistic ground.

 

[washedagain]

The Greek tenses used in the Lukan passages concomitant with the order and content of the exchange between Gabriel and Mary is evidence from Holy Scripture.

The statement is there, but it demands that the reader think not in English language, but in Hellenistic Greek. Ie., one must be attentive and remember that the Gospel of Luke was not written in English and thus is more fully and accurately understood in its original linguistic ground.

Yes, I understand that... and that verse mentions NOTHING of Mary taking a vow of perpetual virginity.

The statement is NOT there.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, I understand that... and that verse mentions NOTHING of Mary taking a vow of perpetual virginity.

The statement is NOT there.

I have already stated that there is no explicit statement of a vow of chastity, yes

I have demonstrated that it is stated in Holy Scripture that she has no intention of engaging in conjugal relations.

 

[Philothei]

The same way you cannot document Christ's "vow" to virginity but we take it based on Tradition or the concept of the Holy Trinity the same applies to Mary's ever Virginity. We also trust the opinions of the ones who consolidated the Bible.

Also how can we have physical evidence of the resurrection? We do not have it or I have been missing something.... I know it is in the Bible but those are testimonies not "physical" lab proof.