Source of Non-Ever Virgin POV

[MamaZ]

it says "woman" which is a term applied to a woman of any age and can also mean wife -- your translator is relying on their "tradition" in translating this term

Read the scripture in the context of what the scripture is being said here. They were already betrothed.. Before the Angel came. Then God told Joseph not to worry that Mary had not been unfaithful to him but that the child she was carrying was indeed the son of God and that HE shall call His name Jesus. Then He tells Joseph to take Mary as his wife. Gune is the word used.. So Joseph did what the Lord had told Him to do.. So since they were already betrothed before God commanded him to take Mary as his wife we can pretty much see through scripture that a wedding took place. For if God had not wanted them to be married then God would not have commanded Joseph to take Mary as His wife since they were already betrothed. The betrothel came before the wedding.

 

[Thekla]

Read the scripture in the context of what the scripture is being said here. They were already betrothed.. Before the Angel came. Then God told Joseph not to worry that Mary had not been unfaithful to him but that the child she was carrying was indeed the son of God and that HE shall call His name Jesus. Then He tells Joseph to take Mary as his wife. Gune is the word used.. So Joseph did what the Lord had told Him to do.. So since they were already betrothed before God commanded him to take Mary as his wife we can pretty much see through scripture that a wedding took place. For if God had not wanted them to be married then God would not have commanded Joseph to take Mary as His wife since they were already betrothed. The betrothel came before the wedding.

if we are going to take scripture "at its word", then we should be consistent

it also means betrothed -- in this context, the statement to "take to you" is in opposition to "put her away"

 

[bbbbbbb]

My goodness, folks, whatever happened to the Bible? The Bible plainly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 12:46,47; 13:55,56; Mark 6:3; John 7:1-10) even going so far as to name them for us. So, what are to make of these passages? I have encountered the following possibilities:

1. They were not actually His brothers and sisters, but were just His cousins since Mary was a virgin and the Greek words could be also translated as cousins.
2. They were Joseph's children and not Mary's and, therefore, only marginally related to Jesus.
3. They were spiritual brothers and sisters, being His disciples.
4. They were actual, biological children of Joseph and Mary and the half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus Christ.

In response to these interpretations I offer the following:

1. Everywhere in the New Testament the Greek word is consistently translated as brothers and sisters. The statistical likelihood of this being actually cousins is extremely marginal, at best. If they were really cousins, why are there Roman Catholic orders such as the Little Sisters of Jesus and the Brothers of Jesus, but not the Cousins of Jesus? If one were to believe these were His cousins then He would have been comparing His followers not to brothers and sisters, but merely to cousins.
2. If they were only Joseph's children, why do they always appear with Mary and not with Joseph? As has been observed, for them to exist would have meant that Joseph had either married another woman, disobeying God's direct command to him, or that he and Mary had some sort of kinky menage a trois going on.
3. If they were merely His disciples, then the passages would not demarcate them as being distinct persons from His disciples which were present at the same time. It would render these passages utterly meaningless. They become something like this, "Jesus was with His disciples in the house and someone came to Him and told Him that his mother and His disciples were outside of the house, wishing to see him. He then turned to His disciples and told them that they were His mother and His disciples." Duh!
4. It is self-evident and the three positions above are logically, theologically, and biblically flawed to the point where they and entirely implausible, leaving only the obvious conclusion that Jesus actually had half-brothers and half-sisters and Mary and Joseph were their parents.

The primary reason for this great brouhaha about Mary's virginity is that, borrowing from pagan sources, Mary has been given a deistic identity in which sexual intercourse is defined as a mortal sin. Thus, for Mary and Joseph to have engaged in marital relations results in the mistaken belief that, in that manner, she would have shown herself to be a mortal woman.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I forgot one other possibility. That is, that somehow those evil Protestants managed to insert these verses into all of the ancient manuscripts of these gospels.

 

[Thekla]

My goodness, folks, whatever happened to the Bible? The Bible plainly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 12:46,47; 13:55,56; Mark 6:3; John 7:1-10) even going so far as to name them for us. So, what are to make of these passages? I have encountered the following possibilities:

1. They were not actually His brothers and sisters, but were just His cousins since Mary was a virgin and the Greek words could be also translated as cousins.
2. They were Joseph's children and not Mary's and, therefore, only marginally related to Jesus.
3. They were spiritual brothers and sisters, being His disciples.
4. They were actual, biological children of Joseph and Mary and the half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus Christ.

In response to these interpretations I offer the following:

1. Everywhere in the New Testament the Greek word is consistently translated as brothers and sisters. The statistical likelihood of this being actually cousins is extremely marginal, at best. If they were really cousins, why are there Roman Catholic orders such as the Little Sisters of Jesus and the Brothers of Jesus, but not the Cousins of Jesus? If one were to believe these were His cousins then He would have been comparing His followers not to brothers and sisters, but merely to cousins.
2. If they were only Joseph's children, why do they always appear with Mary and not with Joseph? As has been observed, for them to exist would have meant that Joseph had either married another woman, disobeying God's direct command to him, or that he and Mary had some sort of kinky menage a trois going on.
3. If they were merely His disciples, then the passages would not demarcate them as being distinct persons from His disciples which were present at the same time. It would render these passages utterly meaningless. They become something like this, "Jesus was with His disciples in the house and someone came to Him and told Him that his mother and His disciples were outside of the house, wishing to see him. He then turned to His disciples and told them that they were His mother and His disciples." Duh!
4. It is self-evident and the three positions above are logically, theologically, and biblically flawed to the point where they and entirely implausible, leaving only the obvious conclusion that Jesus actually had half-brothers and half-sisters and Mary and Joseph were their parents.

The primary reason for this great brouhaha about Mary's virginity is that, borrowing from pagan sources, Mary has been given a deistic identity in which sexual intercourse is defined as a mortal sin. Thus, for Mary and Joseph to have engaged in marital relations results in the mistaken belief that, in that manner, she would have shown herself to be a mortal woman.

the Septuagint - a template for translating hebraic concepts into Greek - uses the word adelphoi for a broad swath of relationships (including blood and non-blood).

your conclusions betray either your Tradition or your bias, as other equally valid conclusions can be drawn.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

as I pointed out in another thread, the Oriental Orthodox have the same teaching; I also cited Hippolytus (a quote from the early 3rd c.) which contains the teaching.

IF your point is that the EO and OO are separate denominations so that there are THREE denominations that have a dogma about Mary's sex life, then point noted. What evidence do they have for this dogma?

But MY point remains the same. Those are the only denominations known to me to have any dogma (or even doctrine) about her sex life and how often she did (or didn't) do it. Thus, those are the only denominations that have anything to substantiate. Protestants, like everyone in the Apostolic Age and God Himself in His Scriptures is (respectfully) silent on this remarkably moot point - at least definatively/doctrinally.

is the Bible dogma among protestants ? or is it "optional" in formulating belief/dogma (as - per many conversations on here, and much online reading, it is repeatedly mentioned that Mary had other children...)

Again, no Protestant denomination (known to me) forbids members to hold personal opinions (although they MAY not permit such if in contradiction to official doctrines of the denomination - which none do on the issue of how often Mary did it). Many Protestants have opinions about Obama, Brittney Spears, "global warming" maybe even UFO's. Some even have rather passionate opinions!!!! However, none of these are doctrines (much less dogma) in any Protestant denomination known to me. Which leads us to the two (or perhaps three) that DO have a dogma about how often Mary did it. Since they DO, and since they regard such as the highest level of importance and certainty, to knowingly deny such is to be a heretic and the objects of anathemas, then it's up to those three denominations to substantiate this dogma (and, I'd add, WHY this is so very, very critical).



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Kristos]

Luther treats at length the miracle of the virgin birth, and on the basis of lack of biblical evidence to the contrary, Mary must have remained perpetually virgin:

Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity... But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin. [46]

That is interesting. As an outspoken critic of the RCC, he surely would have discredited this belief if possible, rather he chose to just minimize it.

 

[narnia59]

IF your point is that the EO and OO are separate denominations so that there are THREE denominations that have a dogma about Mary's sex life, then point noted. What evidence do they have for this dogma?

But MY point remains the same. Those are the only denominations known to me to have any dogma (or even doctrine) about her sex life and how often she did (or didn't) do it. Thus, those are the only denominations that have anything to substantiate. Protestants, like everyone in the Apostolic Age and God Himself in His Scriptures is (respectfully) silent on this remarkably moot point - at least definatively/doctrinally.






Again, no Protestant denomination (known to me) forbids members to hold personal opinions (although they MAY not permit such if in contradiction to official doctrines of the denomination - which none do on the issue of how often Mary did it). Many Protestants have opinions about Obama, Brittney Spears, "global warming" maybe even UFO's. Some even have rather passionate opinions!!!! However, none of these are doctrines (much less dogma) in any Protestant denomination known to me. Which leads us to the two (or perhaps three) that DO have a dogma about how often Mary did it. Since they DO, and since they regard such as the highest level of importance and certainty, to knowingly deny such is to be a heretic and the objects of anathemas, then it's up to those three denominations to substantiate this dogma (and, I'd add, WHY this is so very, very critical).



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

It is critical because it speaks to the nature of God, which is the source of all Marian dogmas.

To believe that God could dwell within the womb of a woman, and then that womb was not therefore consecrated, holy and reserved only to its sole purpose is contrary to what we know of the nature of God. Moses had to remove his shoes because he was standing on holy ground. Why? The presence of God was there.

The Ark of the Covenant was built to minute specifications and sanctified prior to the glory of the Lord entering it. Why? God is quite particular about his dwelling place. Can you imagine that once God was no longer dwelling in the Ark the Jewish people would have turned it into a storage building? Ever read the outcome of those who defiled the Ark, even accidentally?

John the Baptist said that he was not worthy to remove the sandal of the one who would come after him. Yet some think we are to believe that there are others who were worthy to dwell within the same womb, and come after the Lord into the world?

This is why it is important. It is understanding that what God has sanctified for His own is His, and no one elses.

 

[narnia59]

My goodness, folks, whatever happened to the Bible? The Bible plainly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 12:46,47; 13:55,56; Mark 6:3; John 7:1-10) even going so far as to name them for us. So, what are to make of these passages? I have encountered the following possibilities:

1. They were not actually His brothers and sisters, but were just His cousins since Mary was a virgin and the Greek words could be also translated as cousins.
2. They were Joseph's children and not Mary's and, therefore, only marginally related to Jesus.
3. They were spiritual brothers and sisters, being His disciples.
4. They were actual, biological children of Joseph and Mary and the half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus Christ.

In response to these interpretations I offer the following:

1. Everywhere in the New Testament the Greek word is consistently translated as brothers and sisters. The statistical likelihood of this being actually cousins is extremely marginal, at best. If they were really cousins, why are there Roman Catholic orders such as the Little Sisters of Jesus and the Brothers of Jesus, but not the Cousins of Jesus? If one were to believe these were His cousins then He would have been comparing His followers not to brothers and sisters, but merely to cousins.
2. If they were only Joseph's children, why do they always appear with Mary and not with Joseph? As has been observed, for them to exist would have meant that Joseph had either married another woman, disobeying God's direct command to him, or that he and Mary had some sort of kinky menage a trois going on.
3. If they were merely His disciples, then the passages would not demarcate them as being distinct persons from His disciples which were present at the same time. It would render these passages utterly meaningless. They become something like this, "Jesus was with His disciples in the house and someone came to Him and told Him that his mother and His disciples were outside of the house, wishing to see him. He then turned to His disciples and told them that they were His mother and His disciples." Duh!
4. It is self-evident and the three positions above are logically, theologically, and biblically flawed to the point where they and entirely implausible, leaving only the obvious conclusion that Jesus actually had half-brothers and half-sisters and Mary and Joseph were their parents.

The primary reason for this great brouhaha about Mary's virginity is that, borrowing from pagan sources, Mary has been given a deistic identity in which sexual intercourse is defined as a mortal sin. Thus, for Mary and Joseph to have engaged in marital relations results in the mistaken belief that, in that manner, she would have shown herself to be a mortal woman.

Regarding #1, that means you believe that Mary's parents had two daughters and named them both Mary.

#2 -- how about Joseph had long since died? You are applying the 20th century version of a family onto the 1st century, where family meant extended family and once in the family of a man, you were there forever.

Your primary reason shows a lack of understanding about the nature of the Marian dogmas and how they relate to a basic understanding of the nature of God.

 

[MamaZ]

My goodness, folks, whatever happened to the Bible? The Bible plainly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 12:46,47; 13:55,56; Mark 6:3; John 7:1-10) even going so far as to name them for us. So, what are to make of these passages? I have encountered the following possibilities:

1. They were not actually His brothers and sisters, but were just His cousins since Mary was a virgin and the Greek words could be also translated as cousins.
2. They were Joseph's children and not Mary's and, therefore, only marginally related to Jesus.
3. They were spiritual brothers and sisters, being His disciples.
4. They were actual, biological children of Joseph and Mary and the half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus Christ.

In response to these interpretations I offer the following:

1. Everywhere in the New Testament the Greek word is consistently translated as brothers and sisters. The statistical likelihood of this being actually cousins is extremely marginal, at best. If they were really cousins, why are there Roman Catholic orders such as the Little Sisters of Jesus and the Brothers of Jesus, but not the Cousins of Jesus? If one were to believe these were His cousins then He would have been comparing His followers not to brothers and sisters, but merely to cousins.
2. If they were only Joseph's children, why do they always appear with Mary and not with Joseph? As has been observed, for them to exist would have meant that Joseph had either married another woman, disobeying God's direct command to him, or that he and Mary had some sort of kinky menage a trois going on.
3. If they were merely His disciples, then the passages would not demarcate them as being distinct persons from His disciples which were present at the same time. It would render these passages utterly meaningless. They become something like this, "Jesus was with His disciples in the house and someone came to Him and told Him that his mother and His disciples were outside of the house, wishing to see him. He then turned to His disciples and told them that they were His mother and His disciples." Duh!
4. It is self-evident and the three positions above are logically, theologically, and biblically flawed to the point where they and entirely implausible, leaving only the obvious conclusion that Jesus actually had half-brothers and half-sisters and Mary and Joseph were their parents.

The primary reason for this great brouhaha about Mary's virginity is that, borrowing from pagan sources, Mary has been given a deistic identity in which sexual intercourse is defined as a mortal sin. Thus, for Mary and Joseph to have engaged in marital relations results in the mistaken belief that, in that manner, she would have shown herself to be a mortal woman.

 

[Thekla]

IF your point is that the EO and OO are separate denominations so that there are THREE denominations that have a dogma about Mary's sex life, then point noted. What evidence do they have for this dogma?

But MY point remains the same. Those are the only denominations known to me to have any dogma (or even doctrine) about her sex life and how often she did (or didn't) do it. Thus, those are the only denominations that have anything to substantiate. Protestants, like everyone in the Apostolic Age and God Himself in His Scriptures is (respectfully) silent on this remarkably moot point - at least definatively/doctrinally.

quite simply:
the Bible does not say she was married
the term 'adelphoi' has a broad application as evidenced in the Septuagint

based on the Bible, we hold the teaching she did not marry






Again, no Protestant denomination (known to me) forbids members to hold personal opinions (although they MAY not permit such if in contradiction to official doctrines of the denomination - which none do on the issue of how often Mary did it). Many Protestants have opinions about Obama, Brittney Spears, "global warming" maybe even UFO's. Some even have rather passionate opinions!!!! However, none of these are doctrines (much less dogma) in any Protestant denomination known to me. Which leads us to the two (or perhaps three) that DO have a dogma about how often Mary did it. Since they DO, and since they regard such as the highest level of importance and certainty, to knowingly deny such is to be a heretic and the objects of anathemas, then it's up to those three denominations to substantiate this dogma (and, I'd add, WHY this is so very, very critical).



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.[/QUOTE]

then the persistent notion by others that she had children - several - is unbiblical dogma, and is apparently acceptable

rather than bringing up the matter and then making accusations about EO, OO and RC dogma which has Biblical basis, ya might want to address others who go on and on about how the unmarried Mary was a regular breaker of Jewish law.

 

[Thekla]

I forgot one other possibility. That is, that somehow those evil Protestants managed to insert these verses into all of the ancient manuscripts of these gospels.

ah, so thats the source of the pagan John the Baptist -- a sort of Euro-Green Man in the desert ; good job, guys, turning him into an ascetic - tsk tsk tsk

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Again, no Protestant denomination (known to me) forbids members to hold personal opinions (although they MAY not permit such if in contradiction to official doctrines of the denomination - which none do on the issue of how often Mary did it). Many Protestants have opinions about Obama, Brittney Spears, "global warming" maybe even UFO's. Some even have rather passionate opinions!!!! However, none of these are doctrines (much less dogma) in any Protestant denomination known to me. Which leads us to the two (or perhaps three) that DO have a dogma about how often Mary did it. Since they DO, and since they regard such as the highest level of importance and certainty, to knowingly deny such is to be a heretic and the objects of anathemas, then it's up to those three denominations to substantiate this dogma (and, I'd add, WHY this is so very, very critical).



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

then the persistent notion by others that she had children - several - is unbiblical dogma, and is apparently acceptable

No. It's abiblical opinion, and yes, it's acceptable. As are opinions about Obama, Toyotas, Filet-o-fish sandwiches, alien abductions and a host of other things some Christians have opinions about (even passionate ones).


Now, back to the issue of the DOGMA of your denomination that says it's not acceptable it's heresy, its DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex EVER since you belong to one of just 3 denominations in the entire world that has a DOGMA about Mary's sex life and how often she did it? The "ball" is entirely in your court.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Thekla]

[/color][/b]

No. It's abiblical opinion, and yes, it's acceptable. As are opinions about Obama, Toyotas, Filet-o-fish sandwiches, alien abductions and a host of other things some Christians have opinions about (even passionate ones).

I find it curious that the action of the Holy Spirit in one's life, the calling of God to each to fulfill the skopos of their personhood, the salvific work of Christ in each life, is equated with UFOs, fast food and politics.

Now, back to the issue of the DOGMA of your denomination that says it's not acceptable it's heresy, its DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex EVER since you belong to one of just 3 denominations in the entire world that has a DOGMA about Mary's sex life and how often she did it? The "ball" is entirely in your court.

it seems, perhaps, that a bit more research is needed on your part:

dogma is not - in the EO Tradition - a matter of individual derivation: it is not my ball to bounce, so to speak

your apparent disinterest in actually trying, in good faith, to understand what another believes is exhibited in your lack of knowledge about which Churches hold the teaching of ever-virgin

you require a criteria of proof for dogma that post-dates the criteria used in the Churches you criticize; it would be at least honest and fair to require the same criteria of proof (uncontested extant documentation) from the 1st and 2nd century for your own New Testament

it seems at best disingenuous to make accusations about "sex life" when there is a persistent theme in this forum (and on these boards) in bringing up the matter and speaking derisively about the ever-virginity issue by countering that virginity is cruel and abnormal.

these issues suggest that your motivations may be other than stated

Pax


- Josiah

Irini pasi





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I find it curious that the action of the Holy Spirit in one's life, the calling of God to each to fulfill the skopos of their personhood, the salvific work of Christ in each life, is equated with UFOs, fast food and politics.

What it seems you find "curious" is that opinions without such being regarded as dogma - to which all who disagree are called heretics. You seem to confuse what 3 denominations regard as dogma with what some individuals regard as opinion. And you would rather discuss that opinion (as if it was dogma) rather than the dogma (as if it were opinion).

your apparent disinterest in actually trying, in good faith, to understand what another believes is exhibited in your lack of knowledge about which Churches hold the teaching of ever-virgin

Actually, I have studied it. But, IMHO, anyone over the age of 7 probably understands what "Mary Had No Sex EVER" means. Nothin' too difficult there.

it seems at best disingenuous to make accusations about "sex life" when there is a persistent theme in this forum (and on these boards) in bringing up the matter and speaking derisively about the ever-virginity issue by countering that virginity is cruel and abnormal.

Ah, my point. YOU are stating AS DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex EVER, then accusing others of making too much of Mary's personal sex life.

Who is the one with the dogma about her sex life? Only 3 denominations do (Including yours). You think it's somehow inappropriate to discuss that she might not be so deprived, but it's good to declare as DOGMA that she was - and to declare all who disagree to be heretics and objects of anathema. Friend - YOU are the one with the dogma about her sex life, NO Protestant denomination does.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Again, no Protestant denomination (known to me) forbids members to hold personal opinions (although they MAY not permit such if in contradiction to official doctrines of the denomination - which none do on the issue of how often Mary did it). Many Protestants have opinions about Obama, Brittney Spears, "global warming" maybe even UFO's. Some even have rather passionate opinions!!!! However, none of these are doctrines (much less dogma) in any Protestant denomination known to me. Which leads us to the two (or perhaps three) that DO have a dogma about how often Mary did it. Since they DO, and since they regard such as the highest level of importance and certainty, to knowingly deny such is to be a heretic and the objects of anathemas, then it's up to those three denominations to substantiate this dogma (and, I'd add, WHY this is so very, very critical).

Then the persistent notion by others that she had children - several - is unbiblical dogma, and is apparently acceptable

First of all, there is no "Jesus Has Sibs" dogma in any Protestant denomination known to me.

Second, that He did is permissible pious opinion since the term used in the Bible can mean a blood sibling.



Now, let's return to the dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER....



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Thekla]

[/color]

What it seems you find "curious" is that opinions without such being regarded as dogma - to which all who disagree are called heretics. You seem to confuse what 3 denominations regard as dogma with what some individuals regard as opinion. And you would rather discuss that opinion (as if it was dogma) rather than the dogma (as if it were opinion).

please cite your evidence that Mary was either
1. married -or-
2. had children (which would mean either they were conceived by the Holy Spirit or outside of marriage)

Actually, I have studied it. But, IMHO, anyone over the age of 7 probably understands what "Mary Had No Sex EVER" means. Nothin' too difficult there.

what is the Christological significance of the teaching ?

 

[Thekla]

[/color]


First of all, there is no "Jesus Has Sibs" dogma in any Protestant denomination known to me.

Second, that He did is permissible pious opinion since the term used in the Bible can mean a blood sibling.

given your incomplete research into which Churches have "the dogma", perhaps you have missed some Churches ...

given the absence of any evidence that Mary was married, how is the opinion that Mary had children not at the least potentially slanderous ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What it seems you find "curious" is that opinions without such being regarded as dogma - to which all who disagree are called heretics. You seem to confuse what 3 denominations regard as dogma with what some individuals regard as opinion. And you would rather discuss that opinion (as if it was dogma) rather than the dogma (as if it were opinion)

please cite your evidence that Mary was either
1. married -or-
2. had children (which would mean either they were conceived by the Holy Spirit or outside of marriage)

Friend, you STILL aren't getting it...

I'm NOT the one with any dogma here.
I'm NOT the one saying ANYTHING about Mary's sex life.

There's NO Protestant denomination (known to me) that has ANY dogma about Mary's Sex life, Jesus' sibs, Mary's marriage or any of these other issues you keep desiring to transfer to others.



YOUR denomination is one of three that does have a dogma about her sex life after Jesus was born (and, it would seem, an official position regarding her marital status). Thus YOU are the one with the position that needs defending and substantiating, YOU are the one with the dogma.


And you STILL don't seem to know what an opinion is. It's the OPINION of many American Protestants that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but it's not dogma in any denomination known to me. There probably are Protestants who don't think Columbus did that or maybe it wasn't 1492 - and they may hold those positions passionately, but there's no dogma on it. If you think his name was really Fred and not Columbus, you won't be excommunicated or anathematized or declared a heretic or burned at the stake by any Protestant denomination known to me - although I'll disagree with you. There are Protestants are of the opinion that Mary was deprived of a normal, blessed sharing of intimacies (my pastor among them), there are Protestants of the opinion that she was not so deprived, and there are many Protestants (including me) who don't know, don't care and regard the whole issue as moot and frankly none of our business. But, my new friend, those are OPINIONS. None of those views are unbiblical. BUT you are here defending a dogma (in 3 denominations) of Mary Had No Sex EVER. YOUR denomination declared this to be the highest level of certainty, the greatest level of importance, infallible/apostolic/divine/unquestionable TRUTH. There are only three denominations that have ANY dogma about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born and how often she "did it" (or not). YOU are the one with the dogma. Thus, the "burden of proof" is entirely in your court (in spite of your seeming huge need/desire to pass the ball).




Thank you!



Pax



- Josiah

 

[Thekla]

Friend, you STILL aren't getting it...

I'm NOT the one with any dogma here.
I'm NOT the one saying ANYTHING about Mary's sex life.

There's NO Protestant denomination (known to me) that has ANY dogma about Mary's Sex life, Jesus' sibs, Mary's marriage or any of these other issues you keep desiring to transfer to others.

given the apparent paucity of research on this point, I hardly find your say-so compelling evidence

YOUR denomination is one of three that does have a dogma about her sex life after Jesus was born (and, it would seem, an official position regarding her marital status). Thus YOU are the one with the position that needs defending and substantiating, YOU are the one with the dogma.

how much research have you done on which Churches hold this teaching; I think you may be missing some


the dogma is that Mary was ever-virgin; I am not a Church - you seem to have missed that point.

And you STILL don't seem to know what an opinion is. It's the OPINION of many American Protestants that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but it's not dogma in any denomination known to me. There probably are Protestants who don't think Columbus did that or maybe it wasn't 1492 - and they may hold those positions passionately, but there's no dogma on it. If you think his name was really Fred and not Columbus, you won't be excommunicated or anathematized or declared a heretic or burned at the stake by any Protestant denomination known to me - although I'll disagree with you. There are Protestants are of the opinion that Mary was deprived of a normal, blessed sharing of intimacies (my pastor among them), there are Protestants of the opinion that she was not so deprived, and there are many Protestants (including me) who don't know, don't care and regard the whole issue as moot and frankly none of our business. But, my new friend, those are OPINIONS. None of those views are unbiblical. BUT you are here defending a dogma (in 3 denominations) of Mary Had No Sex EVER. YOUR denomination declared this to be the highest level of certainty, the greatest level of importance, infallible/apostolic/divine/unquestionable TRUTH. There are only three denominations that have ANY dogma about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born and how often she "did it" (or not). YOU are the one with the dogma. Thus, the "burden of proof" is entirely in your court (in spite of your seeming huge need/desire to pass the ball).

why the big red letters ?

how are opinions immune from evaluation ?

as long as you you you is repeated to me, would you mind answering some of my questions ?



Thank you!



Pax



- Josiah[/quote]