Speak lovingly of Mary

Uphill Battle · Oct 7, 2008

actually, it follows the same line of thinking.

Is there any biblical evidence of Christ getting Married? no... stands to reason he wasn't married. And as he never sinned, he never commited fornication, hence... celibate.

Is there any biblcal evidence of Mary remaining ever virgin? no. stands to reason, specifically since she got married, that it's likely that she did not.

lionroar0 · Oct 7, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
actually, it follows the same line of thinking.

Is there any biblical evidence of Christ getting Married? no... stands to reason he wasn't married. And as he never sinned, he never commited fornication, hence... celibate.

Is there any biblcal evidence of Mary remaining ever virgin? no. stands to reason, specifically since she got married, that it's likely that she did not.

and there is no biblical evidence that she wasn't a virgin either.

That's the point.

When using scriptures there is no conclusive evidence either way.

The conclusion either way (Mary remaining a virgin or not) is based on something in addition to scripture.

We who have been arguing for her Virginity call it Tradition and have backed it up.

While those that have argued against her being a virgin have provided " This is what's in the Scriptures."

While the whole time it is evident that this conclusion can not be based solely on the Scriptures.

Peace

Thekla · Oct 7, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
actually, it follows the same line of thinking.

Is there any biblical evidence of Christ getting Married? no... stands to reason he wasn't married. And as he never sinned, he never commited fornication, hence... celibate.

Is there any biblcal evidence of Mary remaining ever virgin? no. stands to reason, specifically since she got married, that it's likely that she did not.

the problem is that, in the Greek, it does not (explicitly) say that she married. It is the translators who have chosen to say that. So, as the Bible does not say that Mary married, yet many here say she did, then even though the Bible does not say Christ married, it follows that we can say otherwise.

Uphill Battle · Oct 7, 2008

lionroar0 said:
and there is no biblical evidence that she wasn't a virgin either.

other than the husband and kids, of course. (I know, we can argue whether or not the evidence is valid, or if the evidence points to the same conculsion, but it IS evidence.)

When using scriptures there is no conclusive evidence either way.

I suppose if you have to twist it to fit what's already accepted, sure.

The conclusion either way (Mary remaining a virgin or not) is based on something in addition to scripture.

not from my point of view.

We who have been arguing for her Virginity call it Tradition and have backed it up.

backed it up by saying "we beleive it, here are some others that believed it, so therefore it must be true."

While those that have argued against her being a virgin have provided " This is what's in the Scriptures."

best source to use, don't you think?

While the whole time it is evident that this conclusion can not be based solely on the Scriptures.

Peace

100%? no. But I believe that if you are objective with the evidence, it wouldn't be "say, Mary was ever virgin!" that you'd come up with. I know your paradigm tells you that she was, so therefore there must be another explanaiton for the evidence, I.E. cousins, or halfsiblings, or whatever. But it certainly isn't the most straightforward application of the evidence at hand.

I also think you've forgotten the ultimate point here... if you cannot decree one way or the other based on the evidence... it's foolish and dangerous to formulate must believe Dogma about it.

feel free to disregard, per usual.

Uphill Battle · Oct 7, 2008

Thekla said:
the problem is that, in the Greek, it does not (explicitly) say that she married. It is the translators who have chosen to say that. So, as the Bible does not say that Mary married, yet many here say she did, then even though the Bible does not say Christ married, it follows that we can say otherwise.

yuh-huh. I'm sorry, but the "Bible didn't say Mary and Joseph Married" argument is the silliest one I've ever seen.

Thekla · Oct 7, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
yuh-huh. I'm sorry, but the "Bible didn't say Mary and Joseph Married" argument is the silliest one I've ever seen.

the same line of evidence that you use re: Christ

And the Bible does NOT say that Joseph and Mary married; it seems some translations do, but those translations rely on tradition, not the language of the text.

Philothei · Oct 7, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
actually, it follows the same line of thinking.

Is there any biblical evidence of Christ getting Married? no... stands to reason he wasn't married. And as he never sinned, he never commited fornication, hence... celibate.

Is there any biblcal evidence of Mary remaining ever virgin? no. stands to reason, specifically since she got married, that it's likely that she did not.

wow... you assume that because in the bible it does not say he was married that he was not?

Your call to prove it in the bible that it says he was not...

The fact it says that he was without sin does not mean necessarily means that he was not married....

Do married people fornicate when they are married? Christ could have been married and sineless as marriage does not classify one for sinful... or it does in your book???

Philothei · Oct 7, 2008

Philothei said:
wow... you assume that because in the bible it does not say he was married that he was not?

Your call to prove it in the bible that it says he was not...

The fact it says that he was without sin does not mean necessarily means that he was not married....

Do married people fornicate when they are married? Christ could have been married and sineless as marriage does not classify one for sinful... or it does in your book???

Futhermore the fact he was sinless does not qualify him as unmarried....

Uphill Battle · Oct 7, 2008

Thekla said:
the same line of evidence that you use re: Christ

how so?

And the Bible does NOT say that Joseph and Mary married; it seems some translations do, but those translations rely on tradition, not the language of the text.

no, it doesn't. It just says they were pledged to be married, Joseph considered not marrying her, Angel told him not to be afraid to marry her, and him taking her as his woman. also, people after the fact who thought Christ was the son of the Carpenter.

gee.... couldn't be married at all, could they?

the "they never got married, so therefore she was perpetual virgin" can only be come about by removing all critical thought.

Uphill Battle · Oct 7, 2008

Philothei said:
wow... you assume that because in the bible it does not say he was married that he was not?

Your call to prove it in the bible that it says he was not...

The fact it says that he was without sin does not mean necessarily means that he was not married....

Do married people fornicate when they are married? Christ could have been married and sineless as marriage does not classify one for sinful... or it does in your book???

Philothei said:
Futhermore the fact he was sinless does not qualify him as unmarried....

c'mon... admit it. you didn't REALLY read what I wrote, did you?

lionroar0 · Oct 7, 2008

Man I just lost my whole response

Peace

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 7, 2008

Philothei said:
Josiah said:

2. There is only one dogma from 2 or 3 denominations on this issue, and the "burden of proof" - the necessity of substantiate - is entirely theirs. All their attempts to evade this substantiation that the RCC insists must exist and to "turn the tables" on others just makes it obvious their "hand" is empty.

Click to expand...

yeah and that is exactly what your posts here do.... no substantiation either for all that was brought forth...

It's not my dogma; there are only 2 or 3 denominations that have ANY dogma on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. Thus, the "burden or proof" is theirs, not ours.

you do not have proof of what you believe though.

Click to expand...

Well, I believe that Mary was the Mother of Jesus. I do have substantiation that the RCC and EO accept - God's Scripture. See Matthew 1 and Luke 1-2.

Now, back to the issue of this thread: It is distincitively LOVING toward Mary to share this intensely personal, highly intimate, extremely private, entirely moot and potentially very offensive and hurtful story about Our Blessed Lady without substantiation suffient for dogma and of a nature that the RCC and EO accept from others? The RCC says that to spread a rumor (even if the one spreading the rumor thinks it true) without substantiation is to SIN against them.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 7, 2008

lionroar0 said:
and there is no biblical evidence that she wasn't a virgin either. That's the point.

There's no biblical evidence that Mary wasn't 8 feet tall, had pink hair, a hankerin' for fish tacos and 103 children, either. So, by your rubric, there is dogmatic substantiation for 4 new dogmas:
1. Mary was 8 feet tall.
2. Mary had pink hair.
3. Mary had a hankerin' for fish tacos.
4. Mary had 103 children.
I find your epistemological rubric for dogma to be quite interesting!
Dangerous and absurd, but quite intersting!

When using scriptures there is no conclusive evidence either way.

The conclusion either way (Mary remaining a virgin or not) is based on something in addition to scripture.

No.

It means that the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has no Scriptural affirmation. Nor does any dogma about Mary being 8 feet tall or having pink hair or loving fish tacos or having 103 children. They are all "in the same boat" as it were....

Now...

Let's not forget. NO ONE HAS A DOGMA THAT MARY HAD SEX AFTER JESUS WAS BORN. No denomination on the planet has an official dogma on her sex life after Jesus was born - or even a doctrine or official teaching or denominational opinion. Nope. There are two denominations that have a dogma about this, and one of those is yours. Thus, the issue that you are revealing is that there are two denominations "up the creek without a pattle" on this - and one of them is yours.

Let's not forget. Those two denominations (out of the 30,000 Catholics insists exist) call this matter of her sex life an issue of DOGMA - a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty. There's quite an obsession with whether or not Mary and Joseph had sex or not after Jesus was born. An obsession to the highest possible degree and level, and their "answer" to this most burning and important question made an issue of highest degree - to deny their "answer" is to be a heretic (and has my priest pointed out, heaven is not populated by heretics, and as history shows, the RCC has dispatched souls to heaven ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for not accepting a dogma).

Let's not forget. The subject here is how often Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse after Jesus was born (if at all). It's all about this entirely moot subject that has nothing to do with anything. And is clearly supremely private, personal and potentially very embarrassing, offensive and hurtful. How many of our Catholic and Orthodox friends here are telling us all - as a matter of highest importance - how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING that this is a subject of highest importance for all the world's 6.5 billion people (including kids) and anyone not agreeing with how often they and their spouse have sex is therefore a heretic, the subject of anathemas, and their salvation questionable.

Now, IF Catholics accepted rumors as DOGMA as long as the one telling the rumor thinks it's true, then they would have a leg to stand on. But actually, the Catholic Catechism specificially states that to spread an unsubstantiated story is a SIN. Is sinning against someone distinctively LOVING them (the issue of this thread)?

.

Thekla · Oct 7, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
how so?

no, it doesn't. It just says they were pledged to be married, Joseph considered not marrying her, Angel told him not to be afraid to marry her, and him taking her as his woman. also, people after the fact who thought Christ was the son of the Carpenter.

gee.... couldn't be married at all, could they?

the "they never got married, so therefore she was perpetual virgin" can only be come about by removing all critical thought.

(By paragraph # - this computer sorry)

1. They were betrothed, yes. But Gabriel actually says nothing about marriage -- and refers to Mary using a form of "female" that does not (afaik) mean wife. Anotherwords, we have no evidence that they were married.
As for the people, fat lot they knew as it turned out. In this case, their testimony is already shown to be erroneous (and Luke, IIRC, refers to Joseph as "antipater", not "pater").

2. In point of fact, there is no evidence that they were married.

3. And arriving at the opposite conclusion betrays a lack of critical thought, and relies on assumption not investigation.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 7, 2008

Thekla, all your emphasis on the lack of substantiation for this rumor isn't helping the RCC/EO's insistance that it is DOGMA that Mary never had sex, not once, ever, and that this is a matter of highest importance and certainty, to deny such is to be a heretic and (as my priest noted) "heaven is not populated by heretics."

This is clearly a highly personal and intensely private issue (witnessed by the fact that no Catholic or Orthodox yet in over 150 pages of posts has insisted that the frequency of sex between they and their spouse is a matter of highest importance for all 6.5 billion people on earth of all ages to know, and if anyone denies how often you have sex, they are a heretic). The potential for offense, hurt, pain, embarrassment or simply that this is not a dogmatic matter for the 6.5 billion people of the planet is, obviously, enormous. To admit, as you seem to be doing, that there is no evidence that the rumor is true is, well, troubling to me. For one reason: I love Mary. She is my mother. What is said about her is a matter of great importance.

.

Thekla · Oct 7, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Thekla, all your emphasis on the lack of substantiation for this rumor isn't helping the RCC/EO's insistance that it is DOGMA that Mary never had sex, not once, ever, and that this is a matter of highest importance and certainty, to deny such is to be a heretic and (as my priest noted) "heaven is not populated by heretics."

This is clearly a highly personal and intensely private issue (witnessed by the fact that no Catholic or Orthodox yet in over 150 pages of posts has insisted that the frequency of sex between they and their spouse is a matter of highest importance for all 6.5 billion people on earth of all ages to know, and if anyone denies how often you have sex, they are a heretic). The potential for offense, hurt, pain, embarrassment or simply that this is not a dogmatic matter for the 6.5 billion people of the planet is, obviously, enormous. To admit, as you seem to be doing, that there is no evidence that the rumor is true is, well, troubling to me. For one reason: I love Mary. She is my mother. What is said about her is a matter of great importance.

.

Yet you don't mind if I hold a "pious opinion" on the matter, and refuse to offer substantiation for the authenticity of the text you use for support.

And per your requirements for dogma, a Christian may hold a "pious opinion" that the teaching of The DaVinci Code is true.

So what does your Church teach as "dogma", and how do you refer to John the Baptist ?

Photini · Oct 7, 2008

(witnessed by the fact that no Catholic or Orthodox yet in over 150 pages of posts has insisted that the frequency of sex between they and their spouse is a matter of highest importance for all 6.5 billion people on earth of all ages to know, and if anyone denies how often you have sex, they are a heretic).

Click to expand...

Noone else EVER has ever carried Jesus Christ in their womb, given birth to Him or raised Him from an infant to adulthood. Have they?

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 7, 2008

Thekla said:
Yet you don't mind if I hold a "pious opinion" on the matter, and refuse to offer substantiation for the authenticity of the text you use for support.

1. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is NOT "pious opinion" in the Catholic Church. It's dogma. In the EO, is it only a matter of individual, personal pious opinion and spirituality but the EO itself has no official stand on it?

2. Let's say there's a rumor that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have a child together. The ones speading the rumor say its true but I know of no substantiation for it. It may be MY own personal "pious opinion" that it's true. Would you say that it is appropriate and distinctively LOVING (the issue of this thread) for me to spread this story to all of the world's 6.5 billion people? Should I be questioned, even faulted, for doing so? After all, it's my personal pious opinion that the rumor is true.

3. Let's say you are the mother of a 13 year old daughter. She is a good and Christian girl, with highest values, and a virgin. A rumor begins at school that she and this certain 16 year old boy are having sex. Those spreading the rumor all say it's true. Would you counsel your daughter that these people are being surpremely loving toward her (the issue of this thread) because they are spreading a story which they think is true? How would you counsel those girls spreading this story? If you could sit them down, what would you say to those spreading this all over about your daughter?

Just wondering....

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.

Uphill Battle · Oct 7, 2008

Thekla said:
(By paragraph # - this computer sorry)

1. They were betrothed, yes. But Gabriel actually says nothing about marriage -- and refers to Mary using a form of "female" that does not (afaik) mean wife. Anotherwords, we have no evidence that they were married.
As for the people, fat lot they knew as it turned out. In this case, their testimony is already shown to be erroneous (and Luke, IIRC, refers to Joseph as "antipater", not "pater").

you know those kids games, called connect the dots?

It's a rather simple game. you put your pencil one 1, then go to 2, then 3... if you follow the numbers, a picture is revealed.

2. In point of fact, there is no evidence that they were married.

I beg to differ. It's a huge cover your eyes and pretend if you cannot see that they are married given what is found in scripture. You take a minor technicallity of language, and base a "they were never married" argument to satisfy the perpetual virginity neccessity of your beliefs. It stretches credibility really thin.

3. And arriving at the opposite conclusion betrays a lack of critical thought, and relies on assumption not investigation.

horsefeathers. all of this is based on certain assumptions. For instance, we assume that water is wet. We assume that fish swim. etc... etc... I similarly assume that when you have a man betrothed to a woman, who is told by an angel not to fear taking him for his woman, and evidence that he did, and people assuming at the time that they were man and wife.... well then, I can safely "assume" that they were married.

Critical thought, and connecting the dots leads to reading the scripture without a "my church already believes this, how do I make it fit?" mindset.

Thekla · Oct 7, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
1. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is NOT "pious opinion" in the Catholic Church. It's dogma. In the EO, is it only a matter of individual, personal pious opinion and spirituality but the EO itself has no official stand on it?

2. Let's say there's a rumor that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have a child together. The ones speading the rumor say its true but I know of no substantiation for it. It may be MY own personal "pious opinion" that it's true. Would you say that it is appropriate and distinctively LOVING (the issue of this thread) for me to spread this story to all of the world's 6.5 billion people? Should I be questioned, even faulted, for doing so? After all, it's my personal pious opinion that the rumor is true.
1. But you stated that in your Church either view may be held as a "pious opinion" -- which means some percentage of people who you discuss are holding a view that you decry here as "rumor" and "sin" and "hurtful". So why do you call it "ok" to hold a pious opinion on the matter ?

2. Per your definition of dogma and how it is derived, those in your Church may hold the pious opinion that the teaching of the DaVinci Code is true. Do you hold that "pious opinion" ?

3. So essentially you hold that as long as the sin remains in the heart, is kept "secret", its not a sin. Sounds like "the Smiths lookin' good to the Joneses" to me.

4. You base your dogma on a text - the bulk of which you can't even substantiate as authentic using your own standards. At least show some consistency and use only the parts of that text that meet your standards.
Or is it also ok for you to hold double standards ?

Speak lovingly of Mary

Well-Known Member

Coffee drinker

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Love never fails

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coffee drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Gone.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency