Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You're not reading the posts here....

Nope I just did...

Good, then you now realize that you were wrong when you posted, "You came to this thread to disprove that she is a 'perpetual virgin' and that is YOUR claim."

You want to engage into conversation without any effort... not going to happen...

I'm not sure what your old "switcheroo" here is to accomplish.
YOU are the one that insists - dogmatically - that these reports about Mary are True, thus the "burden of proof" is yours. Why you want to just insist: THIS IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, DOGMATICALLY CORRECT and then just leave it at that, well... maybe you dont' want any effort?

Any one can deny it .. .why so?

YOU stated, as a matter of FACT, (and I quote): "It (the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginithy of Mary) was recorded in the Deurocannocial gospels and other writings that she was indeed so...." You offered NOTHING to substantiate this.

I suspect you have in mind the Protoevangelium of James (a rejected, noncanonical, noninspired book of dobious status which Origen said supported the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and SOME Catholics - who obviously have never read the rejected book - perpetuate). Fact is, the book says NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born and NOTHING about her being perpetually a virgin. Most Catholics know this and don't use the argument you did. BTW, I've quoted (verbatim) the ENTIRE rejected book of the Protoevangelium of James here at CF - the whole thing, verbatim - just for people like you who reference it but have never read it. It's not there. Most Catholics know that.



YOUR position is that this is DOGMA - the highest level of certainty and importance and absolutely Truth. Okay, do the work. Prove it. I don't have any dogma about Mary's private sex life after Jesus was born. No Protestant denomination does (we are apt to consider it moot and frankly a matter of personal marital privacy). The "ball" is ENTIRELY, EXCLUSIVELY and SOLY in your court.





.

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On
​

This thread is getting a little heated and personal. Lets discuss the OP and keep the personalities and polemics out of this thread. If this continues I will close the thread for a cool down period and clean up.
Lets play nice and be mindful that God is watching us always. Keep your posts respectful and edifying to God.​

 

[Philothei]

The issue is I did present it ... and now it is your turn to present something that proves that the Virgin Mary was not that... Thank you... Trying to discredit my sources does not work since you have not brought up anything to prove they are not valid just you saying so...

 

[Thekla]

extant written evidence of Mary as ever-virgin date to the early 3rd.c. (210, Hippolytus);extent mention of her ever-virginity occurs in major ECFs (Basil the Great, Athanasios the Great, John of Damascus, for example). The historical record of Mary as ever-virgin is therefore 1) at least 1800 years long, and 2) attested by repeated reference in the ECFs and practice of the EO/OO/RC Churches.

As to the Biblical record, the above Churches do cite Biblical evidence (provided in this subforum repeatedly and easily accesssible online with a google search) and is consistent with the manner of Biblical interpretation of these Churches. If you do not agree with this interpretation, thats fine.

Finally, the written record of the ECFs on this matter is clear; and knowing her to be ever-virgin and also denying it is slander.

 

[katholikos]

...the written record of the ECFs on this matter is clear; and knowing her to be ever-virgin and also denying it is slander.

Very True.

.

.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

extant written evidence of Mary as ever-virgin date to the early 3rd.c. (210, Hippolytus);extent mention of her ever-virginity occurs in major ECFs (Basil the Great, Athanasios the Great, John of Damascus, for example). The historical record of Mary as ever-virgin is therefore 1) at least 1800 years long, and 2) attested by repeated reference in the ECFs and practice of the EO/OO/RC Churches.

As to the Biblical record, the above Churches do cite Biblical evidence (provided in this subforum repeatedly and easily accesssible online with a google search) and is consistent with the manner of Biblical interpretation of these Churches. If you do not agree with this interpretation, thats fine.

Finally, the written record of the ECFs on this matter is clear; and knowing her to be ever-virgin and also denying it is slander.

1. Perhaps you'll actually quote these Denominational chosen "Fathers" and the date of when they expressed their view? Quote where they state that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.

2. Let's assume you are correct and in 210 AD, it was stated by a single individual that Mary Had No Sex Ever. How does that indicate that it's true? OBVIOUSLY, in 210 AD, it was IMPOSSIBLE for this individual person to have any first hand knowledge of Mary's sex life. He could not have met Mary - or anyone that had or even anyone who knew anyone who had. Would you regard it as dogmatic documentation if a single Mormon wrote in 2030 (210 years after the supposed fact) that Joseph Smith discovered two plates containing Scriptures from God to THEREFORE be dogmatic, unquestionable, infallible Truth? Would you regard that as documentation of dogma? IF so, I surrender the point (assuming this statement in 210 AD specificly states that Mary had no sex EVER).

3. "Rumor" is to spread a popularly held but unsubstantiated report or story. The Catholic Catechism calls such a sin. IF you regard the frequency of sex between you and your spouse as an issue of greatest importance for all people and generations - and the dogmatic discussion of such is the up most in respect/love toward you and your spouse, then I'll surrender the point that dogma about Our Blessed Lady's frequency of sex is an issue of love and respect. But, of course, if YOU tell us your frequency of sex and that you regard it as loving and respectful for all of us to regard such as dogma - then we have your personal word on that. That raises the issue of whether we have Mary and/or Joseph's word on all that.....





.

 

[Thekla]

move the earliest extant written record to the 2nd century:

A remnant of that old Apostolic epoch was saved in one of Justin's writings (100 - 165 AD) in a Syriac translation which goes like this: "Some writer [note: one of many, as it says "εις των συγγραφέων" i.e. one among the many writers] that lived during the time of Augustus and Tiberius, wrote that Mariah the Galilaean, the one who gave birth to the Messiah, Who was the one crucified in Jerusalem, never met a husband and even though Joseph did not abandon her, he stayed nevertheless in purity without a woman and Mariah stayed without a man" (Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentl dichen Kanons, tome II, p. 177).

 

[Thekla]

1. Perhaps you'll actually quote these Denominational chosen "Fathers" and the date of when they expressed their view? Quote where they state that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.

you seem to miss that you know what "ever-virgin" means.
You are more than capable of researching (online) the writings of Basil, etc. online.

2. Let's assume you are correct and in 210 AD, it was stated by a single individual that Mary Had No Sex Ever. How does that indicate that it's true? OBVIOUSLY, in 210 AD, it was IMPOSSIBLE for this individual person to have any first hand knowledge of Mary's sex life. He could not have met Mary - or anyone that had or even anyone who knew anyone who had. Would you regard it as dogmatic documentation if a single Mormon wrote in 2030 (210 years after the supposed fact) that Joseph Smith discovered two plates containing Scriptures from God to THEREFORE be dogmatic, unquestionable, infallible Truth? Would you regard that as documentation of dogma? IF so, I surrender the point (assuming this statement in 210 AD specificly states that Mary had no sex EVER).

As you claim to be "defending the honor of Mary whom you love", and I assume we speak of the same Mary, mother of the same Christ, your disrespectful terminology re: the dogma (renamed by you in provocative language) is still about the same Mary.

Further, as I asked posts ago, how do you refer to celibate Biblical persons (John the baptist, Elias, Paul, Christ, etc.) -- if your terminology is not provocative, then consistency demands you refer to these and others as "no sex ever". I will expect this consistency from you in future

I am not a Mormon, nor is your parallel of interest to me. You obviuosly can believe whatever you will, and do. Likewise, you interpret the Bible as you will. So what ? Unless you deny the "ability to interpret" to the ECFs - and you are perfectly able to do so. Again, what does your disagreement prove, except your disagreement ?

3. "Rumor" is to spread a popularly held but unsubstantiated report or story. The Catholic Catechism calls such a sin. IF you regard the frequency of sex between you and your spouse as an issue of greatest importance for all people and generations - and the dogmatic discussion of such is the up most in respect/love toward you and your spouse, then I'll surrender the point that dogma about Our Blessed Lady's frequency of sex is an issue of love and respect. But, of course, if YOU tell us your frequency of sex and that you regard it as loving and respectful for all of us to regard such as dogma - then we have your personal word on that. That raises the issue of whether we have Mary and/or Joseph's word on all that.....

I am not RC.
(and really, per your terminology, there is only mention of the frequency of "not-sex")

your interest in my personal sex life is unnecessary

 

[Thekla]

since you request a "quote mine", here is some:

Clemes of Alexandria (150 - 211 AD) writes in his "hypotyposeis", which were saved in latin, regarding the first verse of Judas' epistle where it is mentioned "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of Jacob, ...", as follows: "judas ... frater filiorum joseph exstans ... cum sciret propinquitatem domini non tamen dicit se ipsum fratrem domini esse sed quid dixit. judas servus jesu Christi utpote domii frater autem jacobi, hoc enim verum est frater erat ex joseph"; namely: "Judas ... being brother of the sons of Joseph, even though he knew his relation to the Lord, does not name himself brother of the Lord, but what did he say? 'Judas, servant of Jesus Christ'; namely of the Lord, 'and brother of Jacob's' [Jacob = James]. For this is true that he was a brother [of Jesus] from Joseph's side".

"from Mariah the ever-virgin", and regarding the interpretation of Luke 11:27 he writes: "... and she, the one that gave birth to the Lord and ever-virgin ..." (Migne E.T. 27, 1393). - Athanasius

"She did not have relations [meaning sexual] neither after the birth [of Christ] nor before the birth", but she stayed "holy and immaculate" (Haer. 78, 14. 24. 15. 16).
- Epiphanius

Migne 31, 146, 8): "The hearing of the philochrists [i.e. those who love Christ truly i.e. the christian brothers; a common expression of the time and today too in Hellas], does not even want to hear that the Virgin stopped being Virgin at some point ".-Basil

"the ever-virgin stayed a virgin even after the birth [of Christ], without having had any relation with any man until her death". John (of Damascus)

in addition, IIRC, not mentioned earlier among the OT prophetic statements in this sub-forum:
Proverbs 4:3 "only-begotten in front of his mother" (Masoretic)


the teaching of the ever-virginity is not a novelty

 

[Rick Otto]

"Not a novelty"??
In Nebraska we call that a "pile-on"! LOL

If you do not agree with this interpretation, thats fine.

Cool! Then, I'm "fine"!

Finally, the written record of the ECFs on this matter is clear; and knowing her to be ever-virgin and also denying it is slander.

Wait a minute (double-take)! I thought you just said it was a matter of interpretation & not agreeing is fine!

Am I fine or not?
(I may require resuscitation)

Which is more likely, that some religionists would pontificate on something they know little or nothing about or that her status in this regard would be common knowlege?

 

[Thekla]

it is considered - in the Churches mentioned above - that her ever-virginity was common knowledge

no, you do not have to agree
- but, to know of something and then misrepresent it is slander (so ,for example, to know that Christ is the Son of God, and then deny it, is slander)

 

[Philothei]

1. Perhaps you'll actually quote these Denominational chosen "Fathers" and the date of when they expressed their view? Quote where they state that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.

no problem there...but that was presented before... done!

2. Let's assume you are correct and in 210 AD, it was stated by a single individual that Mary Had No Sex Ever. How does that indicate that it's true? OBVIOUSLY, in 210 AD, it was IMPOSSIBLE for this individual person to have any first hand knowledge of Mary's sex life.

Says who? you? Have you any evidence to prove otherwise then?
Historical evidence does not stem always from immediate 'eyewitness" ... that is obsurd..

Thus if no one wittnessed the ressurection of Christ that would mean that never happened. No historian was present to eyewitnessed it.. so what if the bible does mentions it? No one did when it happened...

He could not have met Mary - or anyone that had or even anyone who knew anyone who had.

Again you are speculating that .. .maybe they did or they did not the fact is that the majority of the believers did believe that to be true.... based on individual witnesses.

Would you regard it as dogmatic documentation if a single Mormon wrote in 2030 (210 years after the supposed fact) that Joseph Smith discovered two plates containing Scriptures from God to THEREFORE be dogmatic, unquestionable, infallible Truth?

This is a straw man and you know it... A mormon does not compaire to the thousands of believers and hundred of Fathers of the church who confessed that truth.... Joseph Smith is "one man show" revelation and you know it... The virginity of Mary is based on the typology of the Old Testament in isaiah prophesy etc. It is not "speculated" by the Fathers rather the fullfillement of the prophesy... Where is JS. dream a fullfillment?

Would you regard that as documentation of dogma?

No since that was one man revelation and a dozen a penny... The fact that the Theotokos was considered "ever virgin" is based upon the consciousness of the whole church that is the community of the believers who called themselves Christians.

IF so, I surrender the point (assuming this statement in 210 AD specificly states that Mary had no sex EVER).

you continue with your straw man...






3. "Rumor" is to spread a popularly held but unsubstantiated report or story. The Catholic Catechism calls such a sin. IF you regard the frequency of sex between you and your spouse as an issue of greatest importance for all people and generations - and the dogmatic discussion of such is the up most in respect/love toward you and your spouse, then I'll surrender the point that dogma about Our Blessed Lady's frequency of sex is an issue of love and respect. But, of course, if YOU tell us your frequency of sex and that you regard it as loving and respectful for all of us to regard such as dogma - then we have your personal word on that. That raises the issue of whether we have Mary and/or Joseph's word on all that.....

 

[Philothei]

3. "Rumor" is to spread a popularly held but unsubstantiated report or story. The Catholic Catechism calls such a sin. IF you regard the frequency of sex between you and your spouse as an issue of greatest importance for all people and generations - and the dogmatic discussion of such is the up most in respect/love toward you and your spouse, then I'll surrender the point that dogma about Our Blessed Lady's frequency of sex is an issue of love and respect. But, of course, if YOU tell us your frequency of sex and that you regard it as loving and respectful for all of us to regard such as dogma - then we have your personal word on that. That raises the issue of whether we have Mary and/or Joseph's word on all that.....

This interesting straw man I have ever seen as yet on CF....lol...congrats

1. I am not Virgin Mary and my spouse is not Joseph...(LOL)
Do not get confused here... No comparison as you do not have the same equals to compaire...
2. It is irrelevant also as we ONLY have one Mary and one JOseph there cannot be any comparison... that is ridiculous...

3. You repeatetly offend your fellow posters and flame them thus trying to go off topic...

Thus you are left with a 'rumour' that was not considered slander by the community of believers...and it was so you have to bring forth evidence that it was so... No one seemed to mind to call Mary a virgin or we would have historians who would have recorded people being annoyed about giving that tittle to Mary. Bring it on then....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. I am not Virgin Mary and my spouse is not Joseph..

Lost me; where did I say that you are Mary and your spouse is Joseph???????????

IF you regard as "loving" everyone insisting as the highest level of certainty and importance how often you and your spouse have sex , then I'll surrender the point. If you don't, then my point stands as at least valid.

3. You repeatetly trying to go off topic...

No. The topic are the DOGMAS about Mary and whether the spreading of such is "loving." MY point is that according to the Catholic Catechism, it's actually sin unless it can be substantiated as true, thus, IMHO, it's signficant as to whether it is true - not simply whether "X" number of people accept it as true "with docility" because they are required to do so, but with the same level of substantiation that is required of Protestants, Mormons, etc. It is MY view that the spreading of a popularly held but unsubstantiated report ("rumor") is problematic at best, sinful according to the Catholic Catechism, and potentially hurtful - regardless of sincerity or intent. The subject of this thread is love/respect/truth.

Bring it on then.

Bring on... what? NO Protestant denomination has ANY doctrine (much less dogma) about how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born. Thus, we have nothing to "bring on." You, on the other hand, are defending - as dogma, as the very highest certainty and importance - that she had sex exactly 0.00000000 times after Jesus was born. This is DOGMA. Thus, the burden of proof is entirely and exclusively in your court. It's YOU that needs to "bring it on." After all, this is Our Blessed Lady, the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven we're talking about, and BECAUSE we love her and because she is Jesus' mother, TRUTH about her should matter and thus substantiation is required.





.





[/quote]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. Perhaps you'll actually quote these Denominational chosen "Fathers" and the date of when they expressed their view? Quote where they state that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.

no problem there...but that was presented before...

I must have missed it.

2. Let's assume you are correct and in 210 AD, it was stated by a single individual that Mary Had No Sex Ever. How does that indicate that it's true? OBVIOUSLY, in 210 AD, it was IMPOSSIBLE for this individual person to have any first hand knowledge of Mary's sex life.

Have you any evidence to prove otherwise then?

You didn't answer my question. Nor did you provide any evidence that even a single individual person taught in 212 AD that Mary NEVER had sex. Nor did you answer how this singular person knew that tidbit....

You seem to keep forgetting: This is YOUR DOGMA, not mine. It's not mine to prove or disprove (I have no dogma about how often Mary had sex). YOU are the one insisting - to the highest possible level - that it's absolutely, dogmaticly True. It's YOUR position. I'm lost as to why you keep wanting to run from it and somehow transfer the issue of the frequency of Mary's sex to me. Again, NO Protestant denomination has ANY doctrine or dogma on that issue - and nor do I. I cannot "defend" a position I don't have. It's YOUR position and YOUR defense is what is required.






.

 

[Philothei]

You seem to keep forgetting: This is YOUR DOGMA, not mine. It's not mine to prove or disprove (I have no dogma about how often Mary had sex). YOU are the one insisting - to the highest possible level - that it's absolutely, dogmaticly True. It's YOUR position. I'm lost as to why you keep wanting to run from it and somehow transfer the issue of the frequency of Mary's sex to me. Again, NO Protestant denomination has ANY doctrine or dogma on that issue - and nor do I. I cannot "defend" a position I don't have. It's YOUR position and YOUR defense is what is required.

Show where the ever Virginity of Mary is considered a novelty by the community of believers of the first century AD... then we can have a dialogue.. Thekla provided to you the writers who speak of Mary's ever virginity as a praise to her not a slander. I am looking forward to your reply.
Regards,
Philothei

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Clemes of Alexandria (150 - 211 AD) writes in his "hypotyposeis", which were saved in latin, regarding the first verse of Judas' epistle where it is mentioned "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of Jacob, ...", as follows: "judas ... frater filiorum joseph exstans ... cum sciret propinquitatem domini non tamen dicit se ipsum fratrem domini esse sed quid dixit. judas servus jesu Christi utpote domii frater autem jacobi, hoc enim verum est frater erat ex joseph"; namely: "Judas ... being brother of the sons of Joseph, even though he knew his relation to the Lord, does not name himself brother of the Lord, but what did he say? 'Judas, servant of Jesus Christ'; namely of the Lord, 'and brother of Jacob's' [Jacob = James]. For this is true that he was a brother [of Jesus] from Joseph's side".

Thank you for supplying the aforementioned statement from Clement of Alexandria in 211 AD....

Three questions:

1. Where does he state that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

2. When did he write this (no date or reference was given)?

3. How does he know this? Why is this specific, particular individual regarded as altogether credible to this issue? Did he personally know Mary and/or Joseph or what gives him particular credence in this regard? What are his "credentials" for this specific issue?


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Show where the ever Virginity of Mary is considered a novelty by the community of believers of the first century AD...

1. Show me just 5 people from before 100 AD that state that Mary was a perpetual virgin.


2. You keep forgetting: This is NOT my dogma. It's YOURS. I'm lost as to why you continually want ME to prove or disprove a view I don't hold. NO Protestant denomination has ANY doctrine (much less dogma) how how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born. I'm NOT saying it was 5 times per week or zero times per week or any other - I'm not saying ANYTHING about her private, intimate, martial relationship to Joseph (or even if such even existed). YOU are the the insisting - to the very highest level of certainty and importance - that she NEVER had sex, that she was/is a PERPETUAL VIRGIN. It's YOUR view. It's YOURS to substantiate.


Friend, if I stated as dogmatic FACT that there are 6.34 billion furry brown creatures living on the Moon of Endor, it would NOT be YOUR responsibility to prove that there are or are not (unless you had a dogma that there was a different number). It would NOT be up to you to prove there are some other number (or none at all). It would be MY responsibility to substantiate my claim - and if I raise the bar to the highest level, then the required substantiation is raised equally with that. This you know and understand. Again, I don't claim to know (or care) how often Mary and Joseph had sex - or if they did at all. I have no view, opinion, doctrine or dogma. You do. You have dogma that it's EXACTLY 0.0000000. The burden of proof is yours.

not a slander. I am looking forward to your reply.

I already have stated that I do NOT regard the teaching as false or heretical and I CERTAINLY don't think that ANYONE is being disrespectful toward her; in fact, I'm 100% confident that Catholics and Orthodox typically love and adore and esteem Our Blessed Lady as much as I do. THAT is not the issue, as has been made clear many times.

The issue is: Is it true? Because, according to the Catholic Catechism (I don't know about in Orthodoxy), to spread a popularly held but unsubstantiated report or story about someone is a sin, and IMHO (and you seem to passionately disagree), to spread falsehood about someone NO MATTER HOW WELL INTENDED (especially something intensely private and personal, something YOU would not want spread around) is POTENTIALLY hurtful, painful and embarrassing (as well as a sin). IMHO, love and respect and truth are related. Thus, the truthfulness of the dogma is intimately connected to the issue of this thread: "Is it LOVING?" IF the issue was: "Is it well-intended and sincere" then my posts would have been entirely different and I would be here (as often elsewhere) defending Catholic and Orthodox spirituality vis-a-vis Mary, but that's not the issue. Love and TRUTH are - thus substantiation is.






.

 

[Thekla]

Thank you for supplying the aforementioned statement from Clement of Alexandria in 211 AD....

Three questions:

1. Where does he state that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

2. When did he write this (no date or reference was given)?

3. How does he know this? Why is this specific, particular individual regarded as altogether credible to this issue? Did he personally know Mary and/or Joseph or what gives him particular credence in this regard? What are his "credentials" for this specific issue?


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

- you've skipped the other quotes; why ?
- please provide objective historical proof that the Gospels in the NT are authentic.

 

[Philothei]

Prove then the ressurection took place then....despite that the Bible says that... Where are the eyewitnesses?