Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[jckstraw72]

CJ you should run for Pope. you play the part well.

 

[Uphill Battle]

CJ you should run for Pope. you play the part well.

 

[Philothei]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFYcREO5-j0&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkxFTPc0cBs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOSsCz02wOI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxl-sdGn1ss&feature=related

they are great enjoy

 

[Philothei]

The DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary had no sex ever.

this is in case anyone in here does not realize what "ever virginity" means

 

[Philothei]

2. The Bible says NOTHING about how often she had sex. ONLY that she had not had sex before Jesus was born.

lol.....Like it should?... Why make it a point if it was offensive then? Maybe it was important and it meant for ever ...thus she is ever virgin? otherwise the point of calling her virgin before is pointless... as all girls who were about to get married were virgins back then ... That should be a give away

3. Many regard it as theologically moot and frankly no one's business how often a couple has sex - except for that couple. It's often regarded as a private marital issue and may even be regarded as rude and offensive to shout to others as an issue of highest importance for all to know and affirm.

So why did the Bible mentioned she was a virgin? hmmm ...thus the authors were bussybodies gossiping about her? Hardly the case here....

4. Of course, IF it can be evidenced that Mary had other children then surely she did not remain a virgin. While SOME Protestants feel there is compelling if not conclusive indications of that, others (including me) make no firm stand upon that. The opposite, however, is moot. Even if Mary had no other children, that means NOTHING regarding this dogma. I think all over the age of 13 know that it's possible to have a single instance of sex and not have a child result from such - especially one specifically mentioned in the Bible. It's a meaningless argument that does NOTHING to support the DOGMA.

it is miningless to those who deny to see the "slanted" translation from the Greek language.... That there are "holes" in the translation of the Bible... thus the slanted view on the Ever Virginity

 

[prodromos]

Just like other parthenos, the concern is DEVOTION. The virgins at the Parthenon (hence the word parthenos) were such as a sign of their devotion to the pantheon.

If I am devoted as a giver of funds to the Church, it is not about money, it is about devotion lived out. If I am a monk, and devoted to prayer, it is not about my effort in prayer as much as it is about my devotion to God and His children. If you are devoted to the reading and study of scripture, your intent is not to read and study as much as it is about your devotion to God and His ways.

QFT.

John

 

[Uphill Battle]

as all girls who were about to get married were virgins back then ...

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Wow, is this still going on?

you're basing much on possibility. Tell me, (and personally, I believe that Mary had kids, but it's not of huge import to me) if you came across a MARRIED couple without kids, would you assume virginity?

Again, I am not claiming that this proves she was a virgin. Read my post. The fact that she has no children in the Bible simply makes virginity a possibility.

not all of them....not since Vat II anyways.

But see the great thing about Catholicism is that it does not matter what an individual Catholic thinks or tells you. What matters is what the Church says. And the Church, through the Second Vatican Council (which the Church must hold to be just as sacred as every other Council) recognises the possibility of Protestant salvation.

anyhow...for what it is worth the fact that that couple had no kids does not point to the fact that Theotokos remained Virgin in her marriage ...It just reinforces it. Because is she did indeed had kids with Joseph then how would you feel about her being ever Virgin? That is all what is been said. We are not stupid we know that not ALL couples who do not have kids still can have marital relations...

Thank you for actually reading my post Philothei

Keep up your studies. Sounds like you have a wise head on your shoulders. God bless.

Thank you, I am. Biblical Studies is more than a hobby. I am majoring in it in College and will eventually have my doctorate. But my speciality is the Torah, hence why I am asking these questions.

Now if you could do this simple person one favor and find exactly where in your Bible that Mary and Joseph were married. Betrothed =/= Married.

Thank you for coming to my rescue Intercisus, but I have to disagree with you. Do you notice how Joseph decides not to divorce Mary? This is because betrothed in the ANE is much closer to being married than it means today. Thus in order to break up with her he would have had to actually divorce her from being engaged. Because he decides not to do so, the text implies that they marry.

Actually, there is no marriage ceremony recorded in the Bible, so if I were going to employ "Sola Scriptura" I would have to conclude that there is no Biblical evidence either way.

I disagree. Even going Sola Scriptura, I would say they got married based on the evidence earlier in my post.

Look at cultural definitions of marriage and the particular understanding of marriage; some cultures accept that a marriage can be celibate, others do not consider it "marriage" until "consummation".

This would be the only way to consider the relationship to not be marriage. If you argue that marriage is only 'official' after sexual relations and you argue that Mary remained a virgin, then yes, they were not married. However, I believe that the text implies that they lived together and functioned like a married family. From that, I would argue that they (most likely) performed a marriage ceremony, vowed not to be with others, etc.

The translation of the word "gynai" is not necessarily mean wife it can also be used for someone who is 'engaged" to someone. Being "legally" married has to do with been engaged...

Actually, it doesn't even necessarily denote being engaged. It can also simply mean 'woman'.

The betrothal was enough to cover them legally.

But, correct me if I am wrong, during the time of betrothel the woman would still reside with her father, not in her future husband's (and his father's) household. Therefore, being simply betrothed would not be enough to fulfill th...

"legal" obligation so that Christ will be brought up as a "son" of Joseph.

Knowing Greek helps

Indeed it does.

At the wedding at Cana, Jesus calls His mother "gynai", yet I've never heard anyone suggest that Jesus and Mary were married. Why then do some people insist that the proper translation of "gynai" is "wife"?

Again, it can also simply mean woman. (Note, I do not buy into the idea that Jesus calling his mother 'woman' is an insult. See Scott Hahn's work on this).

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Yes it is.

Because, Mr. Kinsey, you say so.

Nowhere in your post do you address the points I made- you simply hopped back on your three-legged one trick pony.

The DOGMA of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is this: Mary had no sex ever.

Very simple. Very precise.

If that is all that one is capable of, understanding that which is "simple," then one is poorly fitted ITO matters theological. This has been my observation of your level of fitness: incapable of seeing the color within the blocky outlines.

For odd reasons, those that embrace it - fully and with docility - and who defend it passionately seem a bit embarrassed and defensive and even apologetic about it.

There you go again, replying to me, but talking past me. "With docility" is not an Orthodox quote- and you know this. But it serves your polemic.

I am neither embarrassed nor apologetic about the doctrines of Mary as held by the EOC. "Defensive" is a matter of perspective- I would suppose it logical to defend a doctrine from twisting, misstating and contextualizing.

Exactly the opposite. I have no "issues" with Mary and sex at all.

Denial is the hallmark of addiction and obsession.

The obsession and discomfort is entirely on the side of Catholics (and it would seem, Orthodox).

This is what we in the trades call an IKY, or an "I Know You Are But What Am I."
AKA "Pee Wee," as in Pee Wee Herman.

To be frank: I think it entirely moot and completely none of my business of Mary and Joseph ever shared such intimacies or not

On this point we agree- it is none of your business, but you make it so.

- but then NO ONE has ANY dogma about that issue at all except for two denominations: the CC and EO.

Do I detect a little "guilt by association" going on here? Just us and the Catholics, and YOU KNOW HOW THEY ARE.

This thread is not about whether Mary had any other biological children.

There is not now - and never has been - ANY doctrine or dogma on that issue.
This thread is about whether Mary ever had sex.

Her alleged children are used as an argument by those who say that she did not remain a virgin- but you know this.

Ergo, it is and has been made about her alleged children- so don't even try to silence dissent.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Here are the FACTS:

1. The DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary had no sex ever.

2. The Bible says NOTHING about how often she had sex. ONLY that she had not had sex before Jesus was born.

3. Many regard it as theologically moot and frankly no one's business how often a couple has sex - except for that couple. It's often regarded as a private marital issue and may even be regarded as rude and offensive to shout to others as an issue of highest importance for all to know and affirm.

4. Of course, IF it can be evidenced that Mary had other children then surely she did not remain a virgin. While SOME Protestants feel there is compelling if not conclusive indications of that, others (including me) make no firm stand upon that. The opposite, however, is moot. Even if Mary had no other children, that means NOTHING regarding this dogma. I think all over the age of 13 know that it's possible to have a single instance of sex and not have a child result from such - especially one specifically mentioned in the Bible. It's a meaningless argument that does NOTHING to support the DOGMA.

lol.....Like it should?...

IF it's a dogma - a matter of highest importance - one would think so. It doesn't.

That there are "holes" in the translation of the Bible... thus the slanted view on the Ever Virginity

Ah, so the Greek says PERPETUAL virgin but this was dropped in all English translations? What is the verse, I'd be glad to look it up in Greek.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If that is all that one is capable of, understanding that which is "simple," then one is poorly fitted ITO matters theological. This has been my observation of your level of fitness: incapable of seeing the color within the blocky outlines.

... the practice of supporting Dogma with the emptyness between the lines (as is often the case in Mormonism) is an admission that the Bible doesn't support the teaching.

I am neither embarrassed nor apologetic about the doctrines of Mary as held by the EOC. "Defensive" is a matter of perspective- I would suppose it logical to defend a doctrine from twisting, misstating and contextualizing.

Don't take matters so personally, my friend. I never said YOU are apologetic or defensive or embarrassed by this absolute, dogmatic, obsessive insistence that Mary had no sex ever....

Her alleged children are used as an argument by those who say that she did not remain a virgin- but you know this.

... and the denial of such is entirely moot to the dogma - but you know this. THAT is what I stated. IF she had other children, then clearly she was not a PERPETUAL virgin, but if she did NOT have other children, that's moot to the discussion - unless you can prove from biology that every single instance of sex results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible.




.

 

[Thekla]

So what to make of this re: betrothal ineluctably resulting in marriage ineluctably leading to consummation of marriage:

"Nevertheless, if any man thinks that he is behaving inappropriately toward his virgin, if she is not past the flower of her age, and if it is required, let him do what he wills: he does not sin, let him marry. As for the one who stands steadfast in his heart, (having no necessity, but having control over his own heart to keep his virginity): he does well. And so, he who marries his [betrothed] virgin does well, and he who does not does better." 1 Cor. 7:36 - 38

 

[Thekla]

If the touch of Christ does indeed heal, if indeed healing is from God, then having the God-man in ones womb would seem to indicate a healing, and necessitate that sexual activity would result in a child (assuming that bareness is an unnatural condition, or not unlike an illness) unless the ability to bear children were the result of the Fall.

 

[Thekla]

By obsessive is it meant Clinical Obsession (DSM-IV) ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If the touch of Christ does indeed heal, if indeed healing is from God, then having the God-man in ones womb would seem to indicate a healing, and necessitate that sexual activity would result in a child (assuming that bareness is an unnatural condition, or not unlike an illness) unless the ability to bear children were the result of the Fall.

Where does it say that the reality that not every single act of sexual intimacies does not result in a child specifically named in the Bible is the result of some "sickness?"

Where does it say that Mary never had any biological limitations?


Let's return to the issue at hand: Where is the confirmation for Mary never once having sex? To the level of Dogma?



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

By obsessive is it meant Clinical Obsession?

Of the 35,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, 2 (maybe 3) have a DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Dogma is a matter of highest importance. Thus, since it's dogma, it is a matter of some passion, focus and "obsession." It seems CRITICAL for ALL to know, believe and confess that she NEVER had sex - not once, ever, nope.









.

 

[jckstraw72]

Let's return to the issue at hand: Where is the confirmation for Mary never once having sex? To the level of Dogma?

Tradition. you dont like the answer. move on with your life. you ridiculously obsess over this issue.

 

[Thekla]

Where does it say that the reality that not every single act of sexual intimacies does not result in a child specifically named in the Bible is the result of some "sickness?"

A lifetime of sexual activity without issue is typical of a fertility problem, or the use of contraceptive device or method which exceeds the statistical rate of success for any form of (pre 20th c.) birth control method.

Where does it say that Mary never had any biological limitations?

My reference was Soteriological.

Let's return to the issue at hand: Where is the confirmation for Mary never once having sex? To the level of Dogma?

.

I do not recall such a statement in the OP, and will thus defer the defining (or approved alteration of) of the thread topic to the OP.

 

[Thekla]

Of the 35,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, 2 (maybe 3) have a DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Dogma is a matter of highest importance. Thus, since it's dogma, it is a matter of some passion, focus and "obsession." It seems CRITICAL for ALL to know, believe and confess that she NEVER had sex - not once, ever, nope.


.

I don't understand how this responds to my question:

By obsessive is it meant Clinical Obsession (DSM-IV) ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Of the 35,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, 2 (maybe 3) have a DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Dogma is a matter of highest importance. Thus, since it's dogma, it is a matter of some passion, focus and "obsession." It seems CRITICAL for ALL to know, believe and confess that she NEVER had sex - not once, ever, nope.

I don't understand how this responds to my question

It is what I mean by obsession in this case.

If the issue of how often Mary had sex were regarded as unimportant, it wouldn't be a matter of highest importance, would it? And they wouldn't be so offended or embarrassed or defensive when someone wasn't so dogmatically certain of it or simply regards it as moot or none of our business, would they?




.