Source of Non-Ever Virgin POV

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

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

 

[Thekla]

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 ?

 

[jckstraw72]

There is no Dogma of "Jesus Has Sibs" in ANY denomination

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!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

is this a discussion or a diatribe ?

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.

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.





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...

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.

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.

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.


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. 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.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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!

SOME Protestants have a pious personal opinion on all these matters.
My pastor happens to embrace all the Marian dogmas - albeit not as dogmas.
Luther did, too, I seem to recall.
I embrace Mary as the Mother of God, I tend to doubt the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and I have absolutely no opinion at all on the others, one way or the other.

I don't deny, for a second, that some Protestants are passionate in their view.
You'll find that Protestants may have passionate views about baseball, politics, even films (as I do).
Others aren't passionate about any of those things. But maybe other things.

But I think it's good to make a distinction between those with individual personal opinions about stuff and infallible/apostolic/divine/dogmatic TRUTH. Ironically, there seems to be an odd point in this thread that Protestants are accountable for their individual pious opinions while the only 3 denominations on the planet that have any DOGMA on these matters somehow are not. Those WITH the dogma seem to want to "pass the ball" to those who don't - and then have them "prove" or "disprove" a dogma they don't embrace (one way or the other). I happen to think that To Kill a Mockingbird was one of the greatest films ever made (maybe I've even passionate about that!) but I don't have to "prove" it because I'm not insisting it is a divine/infallible dogma. It's just my opinion. At most, I need to show it's credible or possible. I don't have to prove it True.

I'm perfectly okay with my pastor's belief (rather passionate) that Mary Had No Sex EVER, was immaculately conceived and was assumed into heaven upon her death. We had an interesting conversation about the Rosary (which I've prayed and he has not). We've had interesting discussions about Marian devotion in contemporary Catholicism - both of us appreciating the spirituality and both of us a bit concerned for how it can get "carried away." But, he knows my position on these views. I reject the Immaculate Conception and I just have no view at all on the others. He doesn't call me a heretic and I'm very confident I won't be burned at the stake next Sunday when I show up for worship. He doesn't even mention these views in sermons (he did in a Bible study, which is how I learned of his views). Are these views POSSIBLE vis-a-vis Scripture AND Tradition? Yes. Are they substantiated by Scripture AND Tradition? No. Are they condemned by Scripture AND Tradition? No. IMHO, that makes them valid pious opinion but neither dogma or heresy.



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

 

[Macarius]

I've heard some are in Constantinople.

No, those were all taken to St. Marks Cathedral during the 4th Crusade, and from there, the Vatican scooped them up.

Fortunately, Mt. Athos had 2nd copies all locked away safe... safe even from 19th c. British "scholars" (thieves... though I am grateful we now have translations of so many early texts).

 

[Macarius]

It doesn't. Just as it doesn't say that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.

Granted.

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."

You have an understanding of the nature of the Church that is fundamentally different from ours.

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).

We're curious as to WHEN this idea that Mary WASN'T a Virgin first showed up because to us the Church's teaching is something to be submitted to, not something that waits for us to prove.

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this is incorrect, but no Orthodox Christian would demand that you accept the Ever-Virginity of Mary unless you wanted to become Orthodox (since becomming Orthodox implies an acceptance of Orthodox Church teachings).

It is important PRECISELY because of its universality (the EO everywhere believes it), and its antiquity (there was never a time when we did NOT believe it). That's about as strong of a tradition as one can find, so 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.

As for its antiquity, that's what this thread is at least partly about. How old is the belief that she wasn't ever-virgin? Our liturgies (in quite old forms) contain that title for her... it was affirmed at (I think) the 5th ecumenical council, it may have been the 3rd (it was one of the anti-Nestorian councils).

So, this is a question of intellectual curiosity... what's the OLDEST record of someone proclaiming her NOT ever virgin?

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.

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.

And only if we DON'T accept the article in the Nicene Creed about having faith in the Church.

And only if we DON'T accept the traditional interpretation of calling the Church the pillar and ground of the Truth (on which that passage in the Nicene Creed is based).

Since you don't, its perfectly fine that you disagree with us. I would hardly pick this issue as a starting point for discussing Orthodoxy with someone. It's not a central teaching; but it IS a teaching, and 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.

So the onus of proof is contingent on the goals of the people involved. We profess this as Truth, but do so by way of faith in the Church (not evidentialism, as you seem to be asking). That's not terribly persuasive to outsiders, but if our goal isn't to convince you of Mary's virginity as an independent point then its ok that it isn't terribly persuasive.

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.

Show us the antiquity of the contrary opinion (that she was not ever virgin), and you'll have some ground to begin persuading us. If that isn't your goal, then that's ok. We can agree to disagree.

But that SHOULD then turn us to the OP's question: for curiosity's sake, how old IS the belief that Mary wasn't a virgin for her entire life?

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Thekla]

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".

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.

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.

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...

we seem to be at cross-purposes here: you want to discuss sex, and I am trying to discuss a teaching.

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.

what is the likely ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

IIRC, you have stated this elsewhere -- so could you explain how this applies to your offense at the teaching under discussion.

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.

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.

 

[Thekla]

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

have you looked into the Assyrian Church's teachings on this ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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).

By 1500, they pretty much were. As far as I know.


There's ZERO evidence that Jesus did.
There's ZERO evidence that Matthew, John, or Peter did.
There's ZERO evidence that anyone who met Mary did.
They MIGHT have, of course. Then again, they MIGHT have believed anything (you never know what you don't know - as one of my Physics profs loved to say).

In fact, I think that by the 6th century, it was pretty universally believed. It is the oldest and probably most catholic of all the Marian dogmas (except maybe Mary as the Mother of God). But saying that pretty much all accepted it by the 6th century leaves out a LOT of the church!!!!

We're curious as to WHEN this idea that Mary WASN'T a Virgin first showed up

Of course, it can only be addressed from the other end. When is the first evidence of it being believed - doctrinally and universally?

It seems that Origen PERSONALLY believed this, and he writes that it's taught in the Protoevangelium of James. Of course, we all know he was wrong about that, but we see that at least one thought it true. He just offers zero substantiation for it and no indication that anyone else shared that view. It does seem to be an idea that perhaps first came up in the late second century and slowly grew in acceptance. It is the strongest of the Marian dogmas in terms of date of acceptance, with dogma in the 7th Century.

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.

Then you agree with my point.
Yes, it DOES seem to "meet" the Tradition rubric. I never questioned that.
But, as you point out, it doesn't meet the Scripture one.
Thus, IF your rubric is Scripture OR Tradition, you'd have a point.
IF your rubric is Scripture AND Tradition, obviously it does not. As we both agree.

So, this is a question of intellectual curiosity... what's the OLDEST record of someone proclaiming her NOT ever virgin?

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?

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.

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.

But, my friend, the issue before us is NOT what a particular Protestant or Mormon or Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic may embrace as an article of faith. Faith hasn't even come up. What we are discussing is whether it is a dogmatic fact that Mary had no sex ever.

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.

Nor would I have ANY desire or hope of doing so!!!!!!

Remember: I never so much as hinted that the teaching is wrong.
And I rather passionately respect faith and articles of faith.
And, having been Catholic, I highly regard the spirituality that embraces Our Blessed Lady.

That's not the issue of this thread. The issue is whether it is a dogmatic fact that Mary had no sex ever.

And, remember, my Orthodox brother, I'm NOT calling ANYONE a heretic on this issue. Rather, I've been called a heretic repeatedly on this issue by Catholics (NOTE: technically, I'm not! I don't deny it and I'm not Catholic!)

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 never said that it's not a traditional viewpoint.
I never even said that it's not a valid viewpoint.
That's not the discussion.

The issue is: is it a dogmatic fact? Some insist that it is (they seem to be Catholics and Orthodox) but so far haven't presented anything to substantiate that.


Thank you. I look forward to getting to know you. I was active here at CF about a year and a half ago and got to know some of the Orthodox posters and was very pleasently surprised by the similarity of our spirituality and heart - even some of our views. One told me that if I had spent 5 years in Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism, my current situation would be very different. Maybe. Anyway, while I am FAR, FAR more familiar with Catholicism, I have a particularly open heart for Orthodoxy and that perspective. I hope we'll have more conversations in the future.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Thekla]

Scripture is a "part" of Tradition - albeit a most important one

The selection of scripture is the result of Tradition; there is no extant verifiable documentation on the authenticity of the writings included in the New Testament.

 

[Rick Otto]

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!

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.
I think the motivating idea that Mary had to be a pure vessel to "ark" the messiah is based on the ancient patriarchal mysogeny that fears menstruation & envies pregnancy.
That is how even marital relations became "dirty" and even how women got excluded from the priesthood.
The assertion that Eve was decieved is less shocking than Adam's willfullness in transgression IMHO.