- Aug 6, 2005
- 17,496
- 1,568
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
how is the opinion that Mary had children not at the least potentially slanderous ?
There is no Dogma of "Jesus Has Sibs" in ANY denomination - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise. Nor would any lack of sibs mentioned in the Bible mean that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I suspect all over the age of 12 are aware that not every act of marital intimacies results in a child (and certainly not one specificly so mentioned in the Bible). So, even IF you could show that Mary had no other kids (and good luck with that one!!!!), that does NOT mean that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
Thekla said:given the absence of any evidence that Mary was married
... given the absence of any evidence that Mary wasn't married your point is moot.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
There is no Dogma of "Jesus Has Sibs" in ANY denomination - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise. Nor would any lack of sibs mentioned in the Bible mean that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I suspect all over the age of 12 are aware that not every act of marital intimacies results in a child (and certainly not one specificly so mentioned in the Bible). So, even IF you could show that Mary had no other kids (and good luck with that one!!!!), that does NOT mean that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
... given the absence of any evidence that Mary wasn't married your point is moot.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
is this a discussion or a diatribe ?
There is no Dogma of "Jesus Has Sibs" in ANY denomination
is this a discussion or a diatribe ?
Perhaps they dont have an officially pronounced dogma that is binding on believers, but they certainly do believe this. I have heard many many Protestants talk about how crazy the RCC is because the Bible says Jesus had brothers!
I've heard some are in Constantinople.
It doesn't. Just as it doesn't say that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.
That's why there is no biblical basis for a Dogma that "Mary Had Sex" and nor is there any biblical basis for a Dogma of "Mary Had NO Sex EVER." Of course, the first doesn't exist. No denomination (known to me) has a formal doctrine of "Mary Had Sex." But two denominations (known to me) have a formal doctrine (in fact it's dogma) of "Mary Had NO Sex EVER."
Thus, the lack of substantiation is an "issue" for those two denominations with dogmas about her private sex life, not with those that don't.
You seem to want to discuss the OPINIONS of individual Protestants (except for mine) but you seem to be working really, really, really hard to evade any substantiation for the only dogma that exists on this topic - and it comes from your denomination, the dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER.
I'm not trying to evade, I'm trying to discuss at this point; if you are going to refer to a dogma, why do you insist on re-naming it ? This seems to emphasize the point I've been trying to make - that there is not a will to learn or discuss, but to attack. Which is of course, your "right".
as I asked before, per your understanding, what is the Christological 'value' of the teaching ? IE, you seem to have focused on the surface of something - which is clearly offensive to you - and resisted exploring the greater depth of the matter. When I ask you questions, to help me understand what aspects of the teaching you may be missing, you don't answer but return to your highly personalized view of the matter. This tendency subverts the opportunity for discussion and learning on both ends.For reasons unclear to me, you rather passionately want to discuss non-doctrines that don't exist anywhere rather than your denomination's very specific dogma, but only on the issue of Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. It is a bit of a puzzle to me.
we seem to be at cross-purposes here: you want to discuss sex, and I am trying to discuss a teaching.And I think I've answered all your questions relevant to the issue of Mary's sex life and thus this dogma. But, in case I haven't, let me summerize...
what is the likely ?1. Is there evidence that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born? Yes. Luke 1:27, Matthew 1:18& 25.
2. Is there evidence that Mary had sex after Jesus was born? No.
3. Is there evidence that Mary did NOT have sex after Jesus was born? No.
4. Is there evidence that Mary and Joseph "married?" Not technically, not dogmatically, but it is likely given Matthew 1:19, 1:20, 1:25.
here, you rely on your notion of dogma and its "proof"; as I have explained, these notions do not concur with other Churches definitions of the same terms. In order to reach and understanding, would you describe how you understand these terms and how you think the EO understands these terms.5. Is there evidence that Mary had other children? Not dogmatically. It's certainly possible since "brothers" and "sisters" are mentioned and the words use can mean biological siblings, but not necessarily, thus it cannot be dogmatically determined if they were blood siblings of Jesus or not.
not per your apparent requirements. Apply your requirements to the New Testament canon you accept as authentic, so that we may have a point of comparison.6. Did Mary disclose the surpremely private information that she and Joseph never did it? Not that can be substantiated... Did Joseph? Did any Apostle? Did anyone who ever so much as met Joseph or Mary or any Apostle or Jesus or any of the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus? Not that can be substantiated.
IIRC, you have stated this elsewhere -- so could you explain how this applies to your offense at the teaching under discussion.7. My OWN OPINION (and I realize the concept of opinion seems very difficult for you) is that..... I don't know. And frankly, it's none of my business how often they had sex or how they sex or when they had sex. I don't even know how often my parents do it - and (to be blunt) I don't want to know. It's frankly none of my business who has sex and how often. IF I did know how often my parents have sex, to be honest, I wouldn't tell you (or anyone else) cuz it's none of your business.
again, you are welcome to your opinion, but absent Biblical evidence of their marriage, why are you engaging in speculation on "personal matters" when you find it so offensive.Whether they had sex 2.3 times per week or 0.0 times per week or 5.0 times per week is a matter between the two of them (and God). Now, IF you could show that they never married (and see # 4), then I'd be apt to say she died a virgin. But if she and Joseph married, then I HOPE they had a blessed, God-pleasing, loving, mutual sharing of intimacies. It is a wonderful, beautiful, holy blessing; I can't think of a couple LESS worthy of being deprived of such. BUT do I know? Nope. Does it matter to me? To Christians? To salvation? Nope.
Now, back to our discussion. There are three denominations with a DOGMA on this issue of how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born. They all 3 say it was never. There is no other denomination with ANY dogma on this. Thus, the "ball" if you will is in the court of those 3 denominations.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
Granted.
Do you agree that, by the Reformation (and for a while after), all known Christians were professing the ever-virginity of Mary? If not, kindly find some who weren't (as that would help satisfy the OP).
Of course, it can only be addressed from the other end. When is the first evidence of it being believed - doctrinally and universally?We're curious as to WHEN this idea that Mary WASN'T a Virgin first showed up
Then you agree with my point.When you (in another post) claim that scripture+tradition cannot substantiate the ever-virgin claim, you're incorrect. Our tradition most certainly DOES teach it, and as it isn't contradicted by Scripture (by your own admission), it would seem substantiated thereby.
Actually, I seem to recall that some of the ECF did argue that, but it's moot to me. Would it be true that Mary was 15 feet tall if you cannot find an ECF who stated that she was not?So, this is a question of intellectual curiosity... what's the OLDEST record of someone proclaiming her NOT ever virgin?
Actually, you'll find that I'm a very nice guy and VERY embracing of faith. And I tend to respect the faith in one in direct proportion to how they respect the faith in others; so if you'll accept the Mormon who believes that Jesus visited the Americas and founded His Church here, then I'll accept with equal respect whatever you choose to embrace as an article of faith.Only if we accept the implied notion that we have to prove our positions to outsiders before they become legitimate for us to profess them.
Nor would I have ANY desire or hope of doing so!!!!!!barring some kind of evidence that it is NOT Holy Tradition (Apostolic), you're not likely to convince us that its ok to abandon it.
If your goal is to convince us that it ought NOT be dogma (as seems to be your goal given your vehement emphasis on how problematic this dogma is), then the onus of proof would be on you, as it is you asserting that this is theologumenon (pious opinion) and not traditional teaching.
I don't think it was dishonest, but it might qualify as an overstatement if you want to quibble that a common parent isn't the same as a common step-parent, which is I think, the standard rebuttal.this is slightly dishonest. perhaps they dont have an officially pronounced dogma that is binding on believers, but they certainly do believe this. I have heard many many Protestants talk about how crazy the RCC is because the Bible says Jesus had brothers!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?