Thekla said:
I don't think there was much to diagree with
Yeah, I was talking more about the people that, yet again, implied that I thought that I was
proving that Mary was a virgin for life.
What does IIRC stand for?
mutually decided to practice celibacy within marriage.
Correct which would imply that sex is not a necessity for marriage.
There is a Jewish teaching that the flack between Moses and his wife was over his practicing continence ... (As I understand it, as well as the period of continence as preparation, this time frame could be extended per a close experience of God.)
Well, I guess this would depend on which wife you are referring to. When Moses marries the Cushite woman, his brother and sister give him flak. This is probably due to the fact that, being a Cushite, she was actually above him in class and they thought he was being presumtuous. (hence why in the passage the text is very clear to note that Moses was in fact not presumptuous but instead very humble).
It seems that there is an insistence that the secular and legal definition of virgin is the only understanding of the term. This is factually incorrect.
I am not disagreeing with this necessarily but you need to provide proof that when the text was written (or at least early on in the tradition) that there was more to the definition than just the secular one.
California Josiah said:
that the dogma is that Our Lady never had sex.
I am still confused. This
is what the dogma is. Why are people arguing against this. I understand arguing that it is not true, but why argue that this is not what is stated?
Thekla said:
I am not interested in continuing a discussion where the EO doctrine is so rudely renamed by someone who is not EO.
I don't see how anyone is being rude to the EO. The doctrine that is being discussed (and was brought up by me in the first post) is that of the idea that Mary never had sex. Sure, there are spiritual applications to that doctrine, but my original post and this thread is about whether or not Mary was a virgin for life and therefore whether or not she ever had sex. If she had sex, then she is not a virgin. If she never had sex then she is a virgin.
I am not interested in continuing a discussion where the EO doctrine is so rudely renamed by someone who is not EO.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the sum-total of the Theotokos is that she was (is) a virgin. However, whether or not she was a perpetual virgin is an important aspect of her life and our spirituality.
To insist that a part of the definition of virginity (which is also the whole of the legal definition) is the whole of the (Christian) definition is factually wrong.
But to a large extent it really was about legalism. The definition of virginity that the NT assumes is the Torah definition which essentially would be a woman who had not known a man. I am not saying that this has no spiritual application or implication (not at all, in fact it has many such as the ones that you have listed) but Mary being a virgin has everything to do with whether she had sex.
And it refocuses the content and meaning of the term to a system which is not Christian.
No it doesn't. Not unless you want to posit that the system that the people in the New Testament were using and the system that the writers of the New Testament were using and the system that the Church Fathers were using is somehow not Christian. The doctrine in question is about the virginity (lack of sex) of Mary.
It makes John the Baptist more about intercourse than about Christ -- is that what we find remarkable about the Forerunner ?
Have you ever stopped to wonder
why John was an ever-virgin? It is because he was meant to remain pure (which is also one of the reasons that Mary is said to have remained a virgin). However, that purity comes
from not ever having sex. Somehow, his virginity, in a very real way, adds to his purity and therefore his credibility. Likewise, you are right, there are implications to Mary's ever-virginity. However, without the 'secular' definition of virginity, the fact that she never was with a man, these implications would be impossible because it the purity of Mary comes (at least in part) from the virginity of Mary. So, it may sound vulgar to our modern ears, but much time was spent in days of old talking about whether Mary ever had sexual relations and it is still important today, hence my original post.
As I asked before, was Hosea's marriage to a prostitute (commanded by God) all about intercourse ?
No, of course there were implications and symbolism. But the actual command was to marry and have sex with a prostitute. No one seems to be arguing that the perpetual virginity would not have greater implications. The argument is whether the doctrine is possible.
Incidentally, since my original post, I think it is more than possible and would say that the ever-virginity of Mary is the most likely scenario.