Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[lionroar0]

1. There is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Siblings." You might be confusing that with the topic of this thread, which is "Mary Had No _____." The topic is ______, not sibs.

2. Yes, there was some debate about whether Jesus had sibs. But that's moot to any apologetic about Mary having ____. Surely you know that it is possible to have an instance of ____ and not have a child result from that specifically mentioned in the Bible (or at all). Surely you know enough about biology to know that. The entire basis of this very common Catholic/Orthodox apologetic is simply absurd: A lack of sibs does NOT remotely suggest an entire, absolute, lack of ____.






Wrong. This "interpretation" isn't an interpretation AT ALL. This pure eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - c. 394), but the verb to know (ginwskw, ginòskò) is in the present active indicative. Gregory of Nyssa simply plays loose with the verb, twisting it so as to find some support for the developing view that Mary had no ____ ever. But the verb is what it is. Gregory of Nyssa (and those that follow him) are not interpreting the verse at all, they are simply imposing their view upon it - and ignoring the verb tense in order to do it. And there's NOTHING here about any "vow." Nothing.





Pure, abiblical, baseless speculation... Probably the weakest apologetics I've ever witnessed (including in my time studying Mormonism).

And the ONLY verse that say ANYTHING about Christ "dwelling" is John 1:14. And it says that Christ dwelt in the world, "among people." Thus, if your "logic" is correct, all 6.5 billion people on the planet must be perpetual virgins since Christ dwelt in the world.

Can you give me an example of one who experienced the holy and THUS, THEREFORE, as a required mandated consequence of such, never once had _____ in his/her entire life? And again, since Christ dwelt among us - the WHOLE WORLD has experienced the Holy, wouldn't your logic mean that you are a perpetual virgin?






Again, the issue is not sibs, the issue is _____. Let's stay on topic, okay?

So, you have some documentation that according to the OT, if one has _____ even once AFTER a child is born, say 30 years later, that makes the child lesser than he/she would otherwise be? I would be a greater person in some sense of my parents ceased to have ____ upon my birth? Can you share that documentation? IF so, will you?






Again, document for me from the OT that all who were in the presence of holiness were alll THEREFORE perpetual virgins?

I'm in the literal presence of Christ every Sunday because of the Holy Eucharist. Is it thus your position that all who are in the presence of the Holy Eucharist are thus perpetual virgins?







1. There is no doctrine of "Jesus Had No Sibs." You seem to be confusing that with the issue of this thread, a view of 2 of the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, namely that "Mary Had No ____." This thread is not about sibs or Jesus, it's about ____ and Mary. That's why it's called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary."

2. As a defense of this view of 2 denominations, it is moot if Jesus had no sibs. I disagree with your insistance that every single time one had ____, there MUST be a child resulting from such and recorded as such in the Bible or Catholic Tradition. In fact, I'm of the position that it's possible to have an instence of ____ and not have a child AT ALL! Thus, the whole apologetic is baseless. It's MOOT to your position if Jesus had sibs or not. But again, let's say on topic. The issue here isn't sibs, it's _____. It's not Jesus, it's Mary. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Now, conversely, to the COUNTER argument, siblings via Mary is relevant. Because if it can be documented that Jesus had sibs via Mary, that would reveal the CC and EO to be heretical at this point. But, IMHO, that documentation is lacking. But such IN NO WAY suggests that the CC and EO are correct at this point.






.

Someone needs to stop trolling

 

[Dorothea]

1. Lost me. You stated, "Just following what the Bible states ." Your statement is that the Bible teaches that Mary never once had ____. I just asked for the verse or verses. In stead of quoting the verse or verses that state what you said they state, you asked a question.

It doesn't say she had relations with Joseph, nor does it say she does not. Feel better? It doesn't say. Why would it? Look at Mary and her life? What would have anyone jump to the conclusion that she would end up having relations with Joseph? It wouldn't make sense. She dedicated her life from the beginning to God. She was taken care of by Joseph because of her being pregnant without a husband. He was visited by the angel to let him know this so that he could take care of her, protect her. Why would Joseph want to be with her in that way after she had bore their and our Savior? Can you find any logical reason? I can't.

Then let me rephrase. You stated that all others are teaching incorrectly. My question is this: How is not having a teaching an incorrect teaching? Of all the denominations, there are only 2 I know of that ANY teaching on Mary's ____ sex after Jesus was born AT ALL. Both the CC and EO have a very strong, bold, focused, stressed position that Our Lady had no _____ ever. But all others have no position on it at all. They don't say She did have ____ and they don't say She didn't have _____. They say NOTHING. They hold to the oldest Tradition in this regard: silence. So, how is having no teaching an incorrect teaching?

There is Holy Tradition of the Church which has taught that Mary was a Virgin at birth and after. There is no reason not to believe this since the Church is Infalliable. There are fallible people in it, but the teachings that are Dogma are correct and right, period. And since these interpretations have already been translated/figured out ages ago, we already know this. We also know through tradition the basic lives of Mary, her parents, Elizebeth, Joseph, etc., which gives a good history and such for the Church to know this teaching.

Go on and believe what you want. The Truth is there. You accept it or you don't.

 

[Thekla]

Wrong.

This "interpretation" isn't an interpretation AT ALL. It ignores the word, not interprets it. It simply ignores the actual word, as was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - c. 394), but there is a fundamental difficulty here, the verb to know (ginwskw, ginòskò) is in the present active indicative, which in no way indicates future intention. Gregory of Nyssa simply plays loose with the verb, twisting it so as to find some support for the developing view that Mary had no ____ ever. But the verb is what it is, and we all know it. Gregory of Nyssa (and those that follow him) are not interpreting the verse at all, they are simply imposing their view upon it - and ignoring the verb tense in order to do it.


And there's NOTHING here about any "vow." Nothing.


Where is the verse (or verses) where Mary stated she never once had ____, or that she never will even once have _____? That statement was made that Scripture states that, we're just asking for the verse. So far....

Then we were told that no having a position makes it a WRONG position, but here again, no explanation as to how a non position on Mary's ____ life makes it a WRONG position.




.

The verb is of condition, not time.

 

[Dorothea]

Thank-you.

As before, it is illogical for Mary to question how she will conceive the announced child in the future, when she is already betrothed. The use of the continuous tense (within the context of an existing betrothal) logically demands the conclusion that she intends to remain chaste.

BINGO. Thank you prodomos and Thekla.

 

[Thekla]

1. There is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Siblings." You might be confusing that with the topic of this thread, which is "Mary Had No _____." The topic is ______, not sibs.

"_____" is typically needed to produce children.
But your response avoids the context of the statement.
Redirecting the discussion does not negate the point; it skips it.

2. Yes, there was some debate about whether Jesus had sibs. But that's moot to any apologetic about Mary having ____. Surely you know that it is possible to have an instance of ____ and not have a child result from that specifically mentioned in the Bible (or at all). Surely you know enough about biology to know that. The entire basis of this very common Catholic/Orthodox apologetic is simply absurd: A lack of sibs does NOT remotely suggest an entire, absolute, lack of ____.

This was a response to a portion of the discussion which misuses the term "adelphos" to claim that Mary was/is not ever-virgin.

Why the condescending timbre of your response ?

Wrong. This "interpretation" isn't an interpretation AT ALL. This pure eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - c. 394), but the verb to know (ginwskw, ginòskò) is in the present active indicative. Gregory of Nyssa simply plays loose with the verb, twisting it so as to find some support for the developing view that Mary had no ____ ever. But the verb is what it is. Gregory of Nyssa (and those that follow him) are not interpreting the verse at all, they are simply imposing their view upon it - and ignoring the verb tense in order to do it. And there's NOTHING here about any "vow." Nothing.

The betrothed Mary questions how she will conceive a child in the future because, "I know not a man".

Even using the English translation (and ignoring more recent theories of the tense in question), your position viv a vis her response is illogical.

Pure, abiblical, baseless speculation... Probably the weakest apologetics I've ever witnessed (including in my time studying Mormonism).

Your response is not an argument; it is an unsupported opinion which requires a disposition of "bluster" as it has no other support.

Christ was not incarnated into 21st century US culture, nor was the NT written in that context. Investigating the historical culture of 1st century Palestine is not "baseless speculation".

And the ONLY verse that say ANYTHING about Christ "dwelling" is John 1:14. And it says that Christ dwelt in the world, "among people." Thus, if your "logic" is correct, all 6.5 billion people on the planet must be perpetual virgins since Christ dwelt in the world.

You have failed to respond to the scriptural and historical examples. Did Christ dwell in the womb of 6.5 billion 1st century people ? And what happened to Paul after Christ appeared to him ? Would you require that he marry after this ?

Can you give me an example of one who experienced the holy and THUS, THEREFORE, as a required mandated consequence of such, never once had _____ in his/her entire life? And again, since Christ dwelt among us - the WHOLE WORLD has experienced the Holy, wouldn't your logic mean that you are a perpetual virgin?

Mandate ? Where is the scriptural evidence that God abrogates our will ?
St. Paul, per scripture.
Moses, per the cultural record.

Again, the issue is not sibs, the issue is _____. Let's stay on topic, okay?

As above, I was responding to the misreading of "adelphos" as evidence against Mary's ever-virginity. It would be prudent to follow the argument.

Further, I was recounting the claims of non-Christian historical sources.

So, you have some documentation that according to the OT, if one has _____ even once AFTER a child is born, say 30 years later, that makes the child lesser than he/she would otherwise be? I would be a greater person in some sense of my parents ceased to have ____ upon my birth? Can you share that documentation? IF so, will you?

You seem to mistake scripture for a mathematical formulae, or a legalistic tome. You also seem to be artificially narrowing the scope of your "requirements" to avoid any consideration of the points that have been raised.

Again, document for me from the OT that all who were in the presence of holiness were alll THEREFORE perpetual virgins?

Document for me the Incarnation in the OT.

I'm in the literal presence of Christ every Sunday because of the Holy Eucharist. Is it thus your position that all who are in the presence of the Holy Eucharist are thus perpetual virgins?

You appeal to extremes which skip the tenor of the discussion. Why ?

1. There is no doctrine of "Jesus Had No Sibs." You seem to be confusing that with the issue of this thread, a view of 2 of the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, namely that "Mary Had No ____." This thread is not about sibs or Jesus, it's about ____ and Mary. That's why it's called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary."

It seems that for you it is all about "____".

2. As a defense of this view of 2 denominations, it is moot if Jesus had no sibs. I disagree with your insistance that every single time one had ____, there MUST be a child resulting from such and recorded as such in the Bible or Catholic Tradition. In fact, I'm of the position that it's possible to have an instence of ____ and not have a child AT ALL! Thus, the whole apologetic is baseless. It's MOOT to your position if Jesus had sibs or not. But again, let's say on topic. The issue here isn't sibs, it's _____. It's not Jesus, it's Mary. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Now, conversely, to the COUNTER argument, siblings via Mary is relevant. Because if it can be documented that Jesus had sibs via Mary, that would reveal the CC and EO to be heretical at this point. But, IMHO, that documentation is lacking. But such IN NO WAY suggests that the CC and EO are correct at this point.

Where is the evidence that "no position" is correct ?

When you say the creed, do you say:
"... of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary ..."
-or-
"... of the Holy Spirit and Mary, when she was yet a virgin ..."
-or-
"...of the Holy Spirit and Mary, but I have no position on whether she was the Virgin Mary, or Mary while she was yet a virgin"
-or-
do you not recite the creed ?

 

[Philothei]

This "interpretation" isn't an interpretation AT ALL

it is the valid translation from Greek....if someone knows grammar and realizes that Gignoskw is simple present and continious

 

[Philothei]

Where is the evidence that "no position" is correct ?

When you say the creed, do you say:
"... of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary ..."
-or-
"... of the Holy Spirit and Mary, when she was yet a virgin ..."
-or-
"...of the Holy Spirit and Mary, but I have no position on whether she was the Virgin Mary, or Mary while she was yet a virgin"
-or-
do you not recite the creed ?

excellent point and the Nicaea Creed was based on the "tradition" of her EV. so repeating it...as is without a clarification it does translates to that Thanks Thekla

 

[Dorothea]

Where is the evidence that "no position" is correct ?

When you say the creed, do you say:
"... of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary ..."
-or-
"... of the Holy Spirit and Mary, when she was yet a virgin ..."
-or-
"...of the Holy Spirit and Mary, but I have no position on whether she was the Virgin Mary, or Mary while she was yet a virgin"
-or-
do you not recite the creed ?

Ah, yes. Good point, once again, Thekla (as usual).

 

[Philothei]

Wrong. This "interpretation" isn't an interpretation AT ALL. This pure eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - c. 394), but the verb to know (ginwskw, ginòskò) is in the present active indicative. Gregory of Nyssa simply plays loose with the verb, twisting it so as to find some support for the developing view that Mary had no ____ ever. But the verb is what it is. Gregory of Nyssa (and those that follow him) are not interpreting the verse at all, they are simply imposing their view upon it - and ignoring the verb tense in order to do it. And there's NOTHING here about any "vow." Nothing.

where is that source ?

 

[GailMc]

I'm glad this isn't a hate thread. Is that common on this forum? I've been to some where they reeeeeeeallly trash the BVM.

VIRGO ANTE PARTUM, ora pro nobis
VIRGO IN PARTU, ora pro nobis
VIRGO POST PARTUM, ora pro nobis

I really don't understand why some folks get so anti-Mary when discussing Christianity. I think they do it just to prove to their peers they aren't under any un-due catholic influences, as if that were a bad thing.

Peace and all good,

Gail

 

[GailMc]

Dear Before the foundation, it would be nice if you COULD get over your misgivings about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'll pray for you.

I noticed this is an old thread and you probably won't reply to my posting a reply. I will also say I don't know Greek but I could ask my daughter if I have to. She speaks it.

Usually in explaining the Perpetual Virginity and the Bible's stuff about Jesus' brothers I see the accusations of a crowd of persons not wanting to believe and they throw up a smoke screen within the growing crowd of followers trying, in vain, to discredit Mary and the disciples and God even BEFORE He was Crucified! The crowd of disbelievers acts basically the same then as they do now and it is an important lesson in life if one is to be a Christian. Some don't want to believe and see the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as a threat to their religion, God knows why.

You state this:

Traditionally, I have not believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary citing the numerous times in the Gospels that Jesus' brothers (Greek=adelphois) as proof that Jesus must have had siblings. Of course I am aware of the the counter argument that adelphos (this is the singular of adelphois) can also mean cousin but traditionally I have rejected that idea with the reasoning that the 'usual' meaning of adelphos is brother and that there was no reason to use the secondary reason. BTF

I don't go with the cousins theory at all. It is silly to think about Mary having other children. To me, St. Joseph was an older man and widowed, that's how he got to take a Temple Vrigin into his home. His children needed a woman around the house, a mother, and since they knew he was a righteous man, a Temple virgin could be allowed into his home. I think there were those in Isreal who took the prophecies of the Virgin birth very seriously awaiting the Messiah and took pains to make sure this could come about. In fact, I am of a mind the the sons of Joseph made an about face and ran to the side of the naissent Church just after the Crucifixion and Ressurection of our Lord.

Peace and all good,

Gail

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

1. Lost me. You stated, "Just following what the Bible states ." Your statement is that the Bible teaches that Mary never once had ____. I just asked for the verse or verses. In stead of quoting the verse or verses that state what you said they state, you asked a question.

It doesn't say she had relations with Joseph, nor does it say she does not. Feel better? It doesn't say

You are the one who said it did; that you are just teaching as the Bible does. So, I respectfully asked, where does Scripture state that Mary had no ____ ever? I'm still waiting for the Scripture(s) you were referencing. But NOW you seem to say it does NOT say that. Which is it?

I agree the Bible does NOT say that Mary DID have ____; however that doens't dogmatically prove that She did not. The Bible does say that Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and 100 children but that's HARDLY substantiation of a dogmatic fact that She did. Silence is hardly proof of the dogma!

Why would Joseph want to be with her in that way after she had bore their and our Savior? Can you find any logical reason? I can't.

AGAIN (for the third time), I don't understand your epistemology here. Why does the asking of an open-ended question provide substantiation for a dogma? When the Mormon asks, "Doesn't your father have a father? Therefore, isn't it reasonable that God the Father would have a Father?" An open-ended question. Is it your position that the Mormon asking that question PROVES as a dogmatic fact that THEREFORE God the Father has a Father? If not, then you are rejecting the epistemology you keep using - but refuse to explain.

Then let me rephrase. You stated that all others are teaching incorrectly. My question is this: How is not having a teaching an incorrect teaching? Of all the denominations, there are only 2 I know of that ANY teaching on Mary's ____ sex after Jesus was born AT ALL. Both the CC and EO have a very strong, bold, focused, stressed position that Our Lady had no _____ ever. But all others have no position on it at all. They don't say She did have ____ and they don't say She didn't have _____. They say NOTHING. They hold to the oldest Tradition in this regard: silence. So, how is having no teaching an incorrect teaching?

There is Holy Tradition of the Church which has taught that Mary was a Virgin at birth and after.

You're not answering my question.....

Actually, the oldest Tradition about Mary's ____ life after Jesus was born is SILENCE. That's the position of 49,998 denominations. My question is: How is it that those who have no position are incorrect in their position? How can one who doesn't have a position be wrong in their position?

And since these interpretations have already been translated/figured out ages ago

WHAT interpretations? You haven't shared any. Only one from Luke that says Mary IS a virgin at the Annunciation - NOTHING about any vow, NOTHING about anything in the future. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an interpretation from that verse about a vow or about the future since the verse mentions neither, thus one CANNOT have an interpretation about either. And again, the EARLIEST such eisesgis of such comes from over 350 years AFTER the death of Mary - it's not the earliest Tradition, it replaces the one of silence on Mary's ___ life after Jesus was born. No one for over 300 years forced this view of Mary Had No ___ Ever into that text, and obviosly, the text says nothing of the sort.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Wrong.

This "interpretation" isn't an interpretation AT ALL. It ignores the word, not interprets it. It simply ignores the actual word, as was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - c. 394), but there is a fundamental difficulty here, the verb to know (ginwskw, ginòskò) is in the present active indicative, which in no way indicates future intention. Gregory of Nyssa simply plays loose with the verb, twisting it so as to find some support for the developing view that Mary had no ____ ever. But the verb is what it is, and we all know it. Gregory of Nyssa (and those that follow him) are not interpreting the verse at all, they are simply imposing their view upon it - and ignoring the verb tense in order to do it.


And there's NOTHING here about any "vow." Nothing.


Where is the verse (or verses) where Mary stated she never once had ____, or that she never will even once have _____? That statement was made that Scripture states that, we're just asking for the verse. So far....

Then we were told that no having a position makes it a WRONG position, but here again, no explanation as to how a non position on Mary's ____ life makes it a WRONG position.




.


.

The verb is of condition, not time.

The verb is PRESENT TENSE.

Yes, when she said those words, the "condition" of her virginity was the case. But it says NOTHING about until she dies. NOTHING about "Perpetual." And obviously, all who can read realize it says NOTHING about any vow. To or for anything.

Three hundred years plus after the fact, a man simply ignored what the text says and imposed his own view upon the text in a classic case of eisegesis. But the text says no such thing.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"I know not a man".

... not "I never will know a man."

it is an unsupported opinion

Wrong.

It's PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. That's just what it is. It's I AM a virgin, not "I will forever be a virgin." It is what it is. Sorry.

Did Christ dwell in the womb of 6.5 billion 1st century people?

The only Scripture that says anything about Christ "dwelling" anywhere is John 1:14. Literally, "made us His temple." So, using your logic, if dwelling means perpetual virginity, then all in the world must be perpetual virgins. Or maybe your point is this would apply ONLY to those living in 5 BC. Okay, then if all in 5 BC where perpetual virgins, how did we get here?

I asked you for the references for all in the presense of holiness were perpetual virgins - but you ignored that. You just put it out there as if a fact but refuse to give a single case of it. And I asked you how this means that when we are in the presence of the Holy Eucharist, we are not all therefore perpetual virgins - but once again....

It seems that for you it is all about "____".

1. I never said it's all about _____.

2. Do you know what "Perpetual" means?

3. Do you know what "virginity" means (if you are unclear, see the only application of the dogma - namely, that THEREFORE Jesus could not have any siblings)?

4. You keep forgetting that I don't have a position on Mary's ____ life. Nor do 49,998 denominations. There are just two with a position on this - at all. And it's an extremely bold, focused, insistent one: That Mary had NO _____ EVER. The ball is in your court. You have a DOGMA. You need to substantiate it to the appropriate level (unless you are a pure relativist and afford all others to be, as well).

When you say the creed, do you say:
"... of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary ..."
-or-
"... of the Holy Spirit and Mary, when she was yet a virgin ..."
-or-
"...of the Holy Spirit and Mary, but I have no position on whether she was the Virgin Mary, or Mary while she was yet a virgin"
-or-
do you not recite the creed ?

Here's what we say, "... incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary." (Nicene) Was she a virgin at the incarnation? Scripture says She was, and that's what we profess. "... born of the virgin Mary" (Apostles'). Was she yet a virgin at the birth of Jesus? Yes, that's what Scripture says. Does either Creed say, "Born of Mary who had no ____ ever?" Does either say, "of the PERPETUAL virgin, Mary?" Nope. The Creeds preceed that dogma by many centuries.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

excellent point and the Nicaea Creed was based on the "tradition" of her EV.

It never so much as mentions it.

It proclaims Mary a virgin AT THE INCARNATION.
There's NOTHING in the Creed about "perpetual" anything.
NOTHING about Mary's ___ life after Jesus was born.
Nothing.

The Creeds are older than any dogmatic embrace of Mary Had No ____ ever. They OBVIOUSLY don't mention it (as any who can read knows).



.

 

[Philothei]

it does not translate the same in English so matter how one ties to "translate" it ........it just is not there... It says gignoskw and actually it does not have to even say that as it comes to that from the whole conversation... between Mary and the angel.. She is fullfilling that covenant why would she "have to" also be a wife in sharing a marital chamber?

Let me ask this :What does it take away from Mary(not other married women but her) as a person who gave birth to Jesus...if she lived in Virginity? Why 200 years ago people decided to question this suddenly? Why it is important to know the excact details about her virginity? does it make her more "person" if we know for sure that detail about her life? Does it take away from her as a person to be an ever virgin? and if so how?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

it does not translate the same in English

It's PRESENT TENSE.

There's NOTHING about any "vow" (about anything from anyone).

Sorry, it's just the reality.

"I AM a virgin." NOT, I will forever be a virgin."

I showed how, about 400 AD, one man ignored the verb and imposed his concept of the PERPERTUAL virginity upon the text in a classic case of pure eisegesis. You're right, now people refer back to him. But the text says what it says, and it's PRESENT tense. I could say, "I own this Toyota." You should not dogmatically declare as a matter of greatest importance and certianty taht THEREFORE I will forever own my Toyota. It's just absurd. But he got away with it. Still does. Amazing.

no matter how one ties to "translate" it ........it just is not there...

.... I agree. Thus, you must agree with me that this verse is not evidence that "Scripture teaches that Mary had no ____ ever" We were told Scripture teaches that, and this was the verse offered. But you and I seem to agree, it's just not there.

Let me ask this :What does it take away from Mary(not other married women but her) as a person who gave birth to Jesus...if she lived in Virginity?

It doesn't. Not in the least. IMHO (well, LESS than IMHO). But you seem to be forgetting NO ONE has a position that says She had ____ "x" number of times. Of the 50,000 denominations some Catholic insist exist, there are 49,998 that say NOTHING about how often Mary had ___ after Jesus was born. They have no official theory, pious opinion, official teaching, doctrine or dogma. They don't say it was once. They don't say it was 6,000 times. They don't say it was none. They don't say. They are silent. Just as the Bible is. Just as the earliest, oldest church Tradition is. So, they have nothing to defend here: no speculations, no theories, no teachings, no doctrines, no dogmas. Friend, the ENTIRE ISSUE of the ____ life of Our Blessed Lady is found in 2 denominations: And they insist upon it as a matter of GREAT, EXTREME, uppermost importance.


Now, from a PURE MATTER OF SPECULATION (thus doesn't even qualify as a personal theory!), I don't think Her being a perpetual virgin would mean ANYTHING less about Her or Joseph or Jesus or anyone. But then I think the opposite is true, too. But we're not talking about matters of pure spectulation, we're talking about a DOGMA - a matter of highest importance and certainty. And we're not talking about those who are silent and thus we have nothing to talk about with them on this, we're talking about those shouting at the top of their voices as a matter of highest importance: MARY HAD NO ___ EVER!

Does it take away from her as a person to be an ever virgin? and if so how?

Well, in my LESS than personal, humble, fallible speculation - no. But the opposite would be true, too. I don't regard my mother to be "less" because she is likely not a perpetual virgin. But remember: Like 49,998 denominations, I have no view on Mary's ____ life after Jesus was born. You do. The question is relevant ONLY to you, not to me.

Why it is important to know the excact details about her virginity?

You tell me!!!! I've been wondering that since I first heard of this dogma, about 10 years ago.

Remember: of the 50000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, only two think it has ANY importance at all: The CC and EO. Everyone else is silent on the bedroom activities of Mary and Joseph. Two elevate the issue to the very highest level possible. You tell me why.






.

 

[Thekla]

[/color][/font]


The verb is PRESENT TENSE.

Yes, when she said those words, the "condition" of her virginity was the case. But it says NOTHING about until she dies. NOTHING about "Perpetual." And obviously, all who can read realize it says NOTHING about any vow. To or for anything.

Three hundred years plus after the fact, a man simply ignored what the text says and imposed his own view upon the text in a classic case of eisegesis. But the text says no such thing.




.

It is of condition, not time.
Which verb tense/s in English are not tenses of time ?

Even in the English translation, without considering the tense, her response - while betrothed - to an announced future conception of "I know not a man" comments on the future as well as the present and past.

 

[Thekla]

It's PRESENT TENSE.

There's NOTHING about any "vow" (about anything from anyone).

Sorry, it's just the reality.

"I AM a virgin." NOT, I will forever be a virgin."

The reality of the text is that Gabriel announces a future conception to a woman presently betrothed and she responds by questioning how this future conception could take place.

You seem to be ignoring logic.

I showed how, about 400 AD, one man ignored the verb and imposed his concept of the PERPERTUAL virginity upon the text in a classic case of pure eisegesis. You're right, now people refer back to him. But the text says what it says, and it's PRESENT tense. I could say, "I own this Toyota." You should not dogmatically declare as a matter of greatest importance and certianty taht THEREFORE I will forever own my Toyota. It's just absurd. But he got away with it. Still does. Amazing.

You claimed it, you didn't show it. To make such an accusation would require some sort of evidence, I would think. Nor have you given any information on a grammatical and linguistic analysis of the Hellenistic Greek.

This still avoids the logical analysis of the Lukan passages describing the Annunciation.






[

 

[Thekla]

... not "I never will know a man."

Stated by a betrothed woman about an announced future conception.

You seem to ignore this.

Wrong.

It's PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. That's just what it is. It's I AM a virgin, not "I will forever be a virgin." It is what it is. Sorry.

Condition.
See above.

The only Scripture that says anything about Christ "dwelling" anywhere is John 1:14. Literally, "made us His temple." So, using your logic, if dwelling means perpetual virginity, then all in the world must be perpetual virgins. Or maybe your point is this would apply ONLY to those living in 5 BC. Okay, then if all in 5 BC where perpetual virgins, how did we get here?

So do you claim that Christ was not Incarnated in the womb of Mary ?

The conclusion you draw is from your "logic", though I rather think it is not logic per se. It seems to skip an actual theological understanding.

I asked you for the references for all in the presense of holiness were perpetual virgins - but you ignored that. You just put it out there as if a fact but refuse to give a single case of it. And I asked you how this means that when we are in the presence of the Holy Eucharist, we are not all therefore perpetual virgins - but once again....

Not at all. Surely you are familiar with the epistles of Paul ! Paul remained unmarried after he saw Christ.

Per the culture of the time, Moses led a celibate life after being in the presence of God. He was not a celibate before, but Mary was. Before plus after = perpetual.

As per the Eucharist, we abstain from sexual relations for a period of time before and after receiving the Eucharist (as the Israelites in Exodus).

But then, we are not all Mary, nor do we literally conceive, birth, breastfeed, and raise the Christ.

1. I never said it's all about _____.

But you do chafe whenever an EO or RC responds to a non-EO or non-RC poster's use of the "adelphos" as evidence that Mary was not ever-virgin. (Actually, it would be consistent if you would also respond to those non-EO and non-RC posters, to correct them for "leading the thread off-course".)

2. Do you know what "Perpetual" means?

Yup.

3. Do you know what "virginity" means (if you are unclear, see the only application of the dogma - namely, that THEREFORE Jesus could not have any siblings)?

Do you know what "condescending" means
Yes, I know the meaning.

4. You keep forgetting that I don't have a position on Mary's ____ life. Nor do 49,998 denominations. There are just two with a position on this - at all. And it's an extremely bold, focused, insistent one: That Mary had NO _____ EVER. The ball is in your court. You have a DOGMA. You need to substantiate it to the appropriate level (unless you are a pure relativist and afford all others to be, as well).

Of course, that's why you must ask the same questions about "____" for over a year.

Here's what we say, "... incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary." (Nicene) Was she a virgin at the incarnation? Scripture says She was, and that's what we profess. "... born of the virgin Mary" (Apostles'). Was she yet a virgin at the birth of Jesus? Yes, that's what Scripture says. Does either Creed say, "Born of Mary who had no ____ ever?" Does either say, "of the PERPETUAL virgin, Mary?" Nope. The Creeds preceed that dogma by many centuries.

Then why in the name of confession do you still refer to her as "V/virgin Mary" when you have no position on whether or not she remained a virgin.

As for the meaning of the term "Virgin Mary" (as opposed to Mary while still a virgin), please provide us with your linguistic analysis of the Greek of the passage.