 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mary, woman, the physical and sex.
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I guess my comments could also raise a wider issue about the use of image, metaphor or description in the official forms of the church. Some, while appropriate centuries ago, I would argue are less appropriate than they were.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Serious question: does your lexicon actually provide proof of its assertion of the wider meaning of adelphoi? That is, does it quote texts where the wider meaning is clear and undisputed? Or does it merely assume the wider meaning because that's the meaning some Christians would like it to have?
Well neither of mine do, at least not extra-biblical ones, which are the only type that would be valid for such an assertion. The fact the later Christian Community used 'αδελφοι' in such a way might just be indicative of the fact the church changing the use of words. Certainly according to my (somewhat limited) understanding of koine greek, a lot of the way we translate is bound up in 'well that's how it's always been understood'. My Biblical Studies lecturer used to tell us that in her view, the church was only just starting to get over the view that koine was a special biblical language, we're still about 20-30 years off properly analysing it against other contemporary writings in koine to the level she would consider useful. YMMV.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
OK... I'm realising this is a completely different mindset, but: so you honour her. What in the seven hells has her virginity got to do with the price of fish?
This has been answered in a number of posts earlier in this thread, including my first.
If there's something in there that was based on assumed knowledge or was otherwise poorly explained, I'm happy to try again but I would need for you to let me know which part is unclear so I know how to answer.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
OK... I'm realising this is a completely different mindset, but: so you honour her. What in the seven hells has her virginity got to do with the price of fish?
This has been answered in a number of posts earlier in this thread, including my first.
My second, actually.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...
Sir Pellinore, I'm interested in why you consider the Immaculate Conception, the belief that Mary from the moment of her conception within her mother Anne was free from original sin, as "a truth on many levels."
Do you think this whole question of her being free from original sin is part of the "consecrated" idea--Mary as something special from the very beginning of her existence in her mother's womb, set aside, fully sanctified and blessed from that moment...
To take the full Christian story, Cara, Mary's role was to bear Jesus. Being the vehicle through which the Son of God enters the world, she needed to be pure in the fullest sense: someone totally clean and without the normal human blemishes.
Seen in in a Christian sense, Mary's role was not a passive, but an extremely active one, possibly the most important "Yes" in human history.
There is a mutuality in these beliefs: if the Son of God came into the world could his Father not do something special for the woman who bore his Son?
Religion, Christianity is about raising us up and restoring us to our full relationship with God.
That's where I think those who focus on the minutiae of what may, or may not, have been Mary's actual physical condition go wildly wrong. I think they are psychologically, whether consciously or unconsciously, trying to drag the Christian story/myth down to the level of the Sun so that "ordinary people" can "understand" it. Many articles in the Sun, or other similar publications, seem to me to degrade human life rather than raise it up. I think this is what they may be, unconsciously, doing.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, Mary was immaculately conceived, without original sin, and so a suitable mother for the sinless Jesus. Right?
Who was a suitable mother for MARY, then?
The whole idea that it was somehow necessary for Jesus' mother to be 'special' in this particular way just pushes the whole problem back a generation. If you can't have a perfect child inside an imperfect mother, then you end up requiring the perfect mother to herself have had a perfect mother, to infinity.
It simply doesn't make sense.
Your thought is hardly original - but, yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. Which is why the Chuch has never taught it. Why would it be necessary for Mary's mother to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Mary from it?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your thought is hardly original - but, yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. Which is why the Chuch has never taught it. Why would it be necessary for Mary's mother to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Mary from it?
I think that this line of reasoning is meant to lead you to the parallel question: Why would it be necessary for Mary to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Jesus from it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I tend to see Mary as the Christian ideal- as the prime example of one who has absolute faith in Jesus Christ. So perhaps her virginity, and Christian celibacy in general, can be seen in light of Matthew 22:30,
quote:
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
But it's actually the notion of her being the 'ideal' that causes some of the problems we've been adverting to. The reasoning seems to go that Mary is the 'ideal', so Mary should be emulated as much as possible. Mary was ever-virgin, so therefore part of emulating her is being ever-virgin. Avoid sex.
Everybody please note, I am NOT saying that this is the official reasoning process of the Catholic or Orthodox church. I'm saying that it's quite possible for a couple of different ideas about Mary to be linked in this way and produce this chain of reasoning. And there are definitely periods of church history/pockets of churches where the "sex is icky" line has emerged, and it isn't hard to imagine that those period/pockets have been particularly keen to promote Mary as some kind of role model.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your thought is hardly original - but, yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. Which is why the Chuch has never taught it. Why would it be necessary for Mary's mother to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Mary from it?
I think that this line of reasoning is meant to lead you to the parallel question: Why would it be necessary for Mary to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Jesus from it?
Exactly. As perceptive as always.
It's an honest question. Perhaps I'm not simply understanding the 'purpose' of Mary being immaculately conceived, but it seems to me there's an implicit assumption that it was actually necessary in order for her to bear Jesus. That it would have all gone wrong otherwise.
And that proposition just seems faulty to me. If God could keep Mary from being 'contaminated' in Anna's womb, then God could just as easily keep Jesus from being 'contaminated' in Mary's womb.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Attempts to justify a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary by scholastic arguments over whether his brothers were really his brothers, and the meaning of “until”, are just clutching at straws.
At least we’ve been spared the old chestnut about whether her hymen was broken when Jesus emerged, which is just about on a par with angels dancing on the point of a needle (apocryphal, I know, but hinted at in Aquinas).
The overwhelmingly intransigent objection to the dogma - that there is not the remotest suggestion of it anywhere in the NT, implicitly or explicitly, let alone any discussion of its implications - survives all such sophistry.
Joseph and Mary lived together as man and wife (John 6:42), and in the absence of any teaching to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that they had anything other than a normal marital relationship, including sex.
The onus is on those who think otherwise to produce a biblical argument for their case, which is impossible.
Even theological arguments along the lines of Mary’s having to be an appropriate receptacle in her role as theotokos degenerates, as we have seen, into an absurd infinite regress, involving not only her mother but all her female ancestors.
Supporters of Mary’s perpetual virginity, before and since old Pio Nono one and a half centuries ago, have just made an assumption devoid of evidence, and then in effect stonewalled against those who disagree with them: “Oh, you’re just saying that because you’re a Protestant!”.
Didn’t C.S. Lewis identified and dissected just such a strategy, labelling it as something, I seem to recall, beginning with B……?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and do believe that she had children after Jesus. However, why then did Jesus entrust Mary's care (presumably Joseph was older than Mary and was dead by then) to John and not one of Jesus' siblings?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Attempts to justify a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary by scholastic arguments over whether his brothers were really his brothers, and the meaning of “until”, are just clutching at straws.
You misunderstand. We are not attempting to justify our belief. I don't need to justify my belief, and if I were to justify it, it wouldn't be on those terms. The purpose of talking about "brothers" and "until" is to counter objections, not justify belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The overwhelmingly intransigent objection to the dogma - that there is not the remotest suggestion of it anywhere in the NT, implicitly or explicitly, let alone any discussion of its implications - survives all such sophistry. [snip] The onus is on those who think otherwise to produce a biblical argument for their case, which is impossible.
A thoroughly Protestant objection, and as such quite irrelevant to the RCC or EOC. I have no need to produce a "biblical" argument, because the whole idea that I should only believe things that are "biblical" is not part of my religious worldview. And before you complain that if I want to convince you to believe in it, I need to give a biblical argument: I don't give a flying rat's fuck whether you believe in it.
quote:
Supporters of Mary’s perpetual virginity, before and since old Pio Nono one and a half centuries ago, have just made an assumption devoid of evidence,
That has already been decisively disproven in this very thread. There is evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical. What you mean is an assumption devoid of biblical evidence THAT YOU ACCEPT AS SUCH. And since you ONLY accept Biblical evidence, then yes, it is a very Protestant thing you are doing. I wouldn't equate this flaccid line of argumentation with Protestantism, however, since there are many Protestants who do not advance it, and indeed many (I might mention John Calvin and Martin Luther) who accept the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Even theological arguments along the lines of Mary’s having to be an appropriate receptacle in her role as theotokos degenerates, as we have seen, into an absurd infinite regress, involving not only her mother but all her female ancestors.
Just to pick you up on this, that argument related to her immaculate conception, and NOT to her perpetual virginity. I don't think the status of her ancestors comes into it on the virginity question.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I did a bit of hunting and I should point out that though Aramaic/Hebrew/Arabic don't have a single word for cousins it is partly because what we English speakers see as cousins (or at least first cousins) they divided into up to 8 groups (sons/daughters of mother's/father's sisters/brothers). They didn't have a single word for each of these groups but would use a combo (e.g., paternal uncle's son, maternal aunt's daughter, 'bar dod' [son-uncle] is one example [in English we use combos for things like grandfather, mother-in-law, half-brother]); they apparently did have separate words for paternal aunts and uncles and maternal aunts and uncles. It is what modern Arabic does and there is evidence Biblical Hebrew and languages close to 1st century Aramaic did (though paucity of documentation may mean not all forms in a given Semitic language are known).
English on the other hand mingles all these different cousins together (not to mention that uncle can mean maternal uncle, paternal uncle, maternal aunt's husband, paternal aunt's husband, or even close male family friend).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Many languages (cultures) have a special word for a man's sister's sons. These have a special relationship with the man, because he KNOWS his family's DNA is in them. He can't be sure of "his" own kids for obvious reasons. </tangent>
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Joseph and Mary lived together as man and wife (John 6:42), and in the absence of any teaching to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that they had anything other than a normal marital relationship, including sex.
What do you mean "in the absence of any teaching to the contrary?" That's what we're talking about here, isn't it? The teaching that Mary was ever virgin? The existence of that teaching in antiquity, among Christians in all places and times, and in the consensus of the saints, is a particularly strong reason to accept it as true.
quote:
The onus is on those who think otherwise to produce a biblical argument for their case, which is impossible.
It's not impossible. It's not even difficult. But you've already rejected it, so there's no reason to make it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Joseph and Mary lived together as man and wife (John 6:42), and in the absence of any teaching to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that they had anything other than a normal marital relationship, including sex.
What do you mean "in the absence of any teaching to the contrary?" That's what we're talking about here, isn't it? The teaching that Mary was ever virgin? The existence of that teaching in antiquity, among Christians in all places and times, and in the consensus of the saints, is a particularly strong reason to accept it as true.
quote:
The onus is on those who think otherwise to produce a biblical argument for their case, which is impossible.
It's not impossible. It's not even difficult. But you've already rejected it, so there's no reason to make it.
So what's the Biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity? Tradition is full of it of course, but for those of us who are sola scriptura, that doesn't count as evidence.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...
Sir Pellinore, I'm interested in why you consider the Immaculate Conception, the belief that Mary from the moment of her conception within her mother Anne was free from original sin, as "a truth on many levels."
Do you think this whole question of her being free from original sin is part of the "consecrated" idea--Mary as something special from the very beginning of her existence in her mother's womb, set aside, fully sanctified and blessed from that moment...
To take the full Christian story, Cara, Mary's role was to bear Jesus. Being the vehicle through which the Son of God enters the world, she needed to be pure in the fullest sense: someone totally clean and without the normal human blemishes.
Seen in in a Christian sense, Mary's role was not a passive, but an extremely active one, possibly the most important "Yes" in human history.
There is a mutuality in these beliefs: if the Son of God came into the world could his Father not do something special for the woman who bore his Son?
Religion, Christianity is about raising us up and restoring us to our full relationship with God.
That's where I think those who focus on the minutiae of what may, or may not, have been Mary's actual physical condition go wildly wrong. I think they are psychologically, whether consciously or unconsciously, trying to drag the Christian story/myth down to the level of the Sun so that "ordinary people" can "understand" it. Many articles in the Sun, or other similar publications, seem to me to degrade human life rather than raise it up. I think this is what they may be, unconsciously, doing.
Yes, I can see this point of view absolutely, that she would be someone special, set apart, free of the normal human blemishes....as in the consecrated bakeware analogy!
One can see why the traditions evolved of the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity....but I think enshrining them in doctrine, making a whole detailed doctrinal argument about the freedom from original sin and the perpetual virginity, and exactly how they happened, and over-defining this and that, is going into a whole lot of unnecessary detail, going too far. But I suppose that is the heritage of a certain type of theology in the past--what's known as Scholasticism? (Showing my ignorance.)
And I think that the very detailed theology does lead to this prurient Sun-newspaper-type dwelling on her physical condition.
I can also sympathise with those who say her "yes" would be even more wonderful if she were a normal, non-immaculate woman....I know the immaculate conception doesn't mean that she was sinless, just that she didn't have "the stain of original sin" from the start, but still. Makes her seem so "special" that her incredible history-shattering "yes" was easier for her than it would be for anyone else....
As usual, I can sympathise with several sides to the argument! In the end, it's fascinating to discuss, and the underlying theme--respect for Mary because of the colossal significance of the Incarnation--is important; but the details should surely not divide Christians.
Alas, again, by enshrining them in doctrine, and doctrine faithful Catholics must accept, the Catholic Church has made them into something that divides Christians....
cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what's the Biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity? Tradition is full of it of course, but for those of us who are sola scriptura, that doesn't count as evidence.
Forgive me, I don't have time to build the whole argument tonight, but I don't want to ignore you, either.
You could start with this explanation of Ezekiel 44.
And this discussion by the same author explains the way the New Testament supports the doctrine implicitly, if not explicitly.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical.
No there isn't.
What?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical.
No there isn't.
What?
Are you shit stirring for fun? How's that feel, then?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what's the Biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity? Tradition is full of it of course, but for those of us who are sola scriptura, that doesn't count as evidence.
There is evidence from canonical scripture, and there is other evidence. The real issue for the sola scriptura mindset is whether that other evidence gives pause for thought, is easy to dismiss as inconsequential.
The Infancy Gospel of James, which I referenced earlier and which Josephine has also cited, gives pause for thought. As do other aspects of Tradition. Tradition is not just about stories; it incorporates records, decisions of ecumenical councils, long running debates eventually resolved. You may wish not to give it priority but you cannot dismiss it as "not evidence". Of course it is evidence; the issue is on what grounds you see it as conclusive, or disregardable.
Before there was a Canon of Scripture, there were Christians in this world who venerated Mary, believed she was seen as set apart, married to an old man as a part of that "set apartness". That is pretty conclusively demonstrated by the text and probable age of the Infancy Gospel. By all means argue that the early Christians who believed that were deluded. But have a care. There are other considerations.
Those who ratified the Canon were seeking to set boundaries for orthodoxy in Christian faith in other ways. In resolving certain disputes, the terms "Theotokos" and "ever-virgin" were ratified as orthodox for Christian faith by the early ecumenical councils.
In short those who defined the Canon (without which no sola scriptura) also provided the boundaries for beliefs about Mary. As they did re Trinity and the Person of Christ.
Now I'm a nonconformist protestant. I am heterodox about Mary from the POV of those Christians who adhere to the full range of orthodox ratifications by the ecumenical councils. I am orthodox about the Trinity and the Person of Christ, out of conviction. But I'm agnostic about "ever-virgin" because I think the evidence of scripture and tradition cannot be completely resolved one way or another. In short, I don't know.
IMO, it is foolish for us, as Protestants, to argue that we know for sure that the Orthodox and Catholics must have it wrong, must have taken reflection too far in the development of doctrine. The evidence points in different directions and does not allow us to do that.
So I take a view. Because I genuinely don't know, I make a point of not rubbishing the opinions of others who are convinced as an article of faith. One way or another. That is a result of both looking at the evidence - all of it, not just the bits which suited me - and reflecting on it.
[ 16. August 2012, 08:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what's the Biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity? Tradition is full of it of course, but for those of us who are sola scriptura, that doesn't count as evidence.
There is evidence from canonical scripture, and there is other evidence. The real issue for the sola scriptura mindset is whether that other evidence gives pause for thought, is easy to dismiss as inconsequential.
The Infancy Gospel of James, which I referenced earlier and which Josephine has also cited, gives pause for thought. As do other aspects of Tradition. Tradition is not just about stories; it incorporates records, decisions of ecumenical councils, long running debates eventually resolved. You may wish not to give it priority but you cannot dismiss it as "not evidence". Of course it is evidence; the issue is on what grounds you see it as conclusive, or disregardable.
Before there was a Canon of Scripture, there were Christians in this world who venerated Mary, believed she was seen as set apart, married to an old man as a part of that "set apartness". That is pretty conclusively demonstrated by the text and probable age of the Infancy Gospel. By all means argue that the early Christians who believed that were deluded. But have a care. There are other considerations.
Those who ratified the Canon were seeking to set boundaries for orthodoxy in Christian faith in other ways. In resolving certain disputes, the terms "Theotokos" and "ever-virgin" were ratified as orthodox for Christian faith by the early ecumenical councils.
In short those who defined the Canon (without which no sola scriptura) also provided the boundaries for beliefs about Mary. As they did re Trinity and the Person of Christ.
Now I'm a nonconformist protestant. I am heterodox about Mary from the POV of those Christians who adhere to the full range of orthodox ratifications by the ecumenical councils. I am orthodox about the Trinity and the Person of Christ, out of conviction. But I'm agnostic about "ever-virgin" because I think the evidence of scripture and tradition cannot be completely resolved one way or another. In short, I don't know.
IMO, it is foolish for us, as Protestants, to argue that we know for sure that the Orthodox and Catholics must have it wrong, must have taken reflection too far in the development of doctrine. The evidence points in different directions and does not allow us to do that.
So I take a view. Because I genuinely don't know, I make a point of not rubbishing the opinions of others who are convinced as an article of faith. One way or another. That is a result of both looking at the evidence - all of it, not just the bits which suited me - and reflecting on it.
Thank you for this post, Barnabas; I admire very much the temperate tone and the well-thought-out-ness of it.
I absolutely agree we cannot know for sure the Orthodox and Catholics have it wrong....
we cannot know anything for sure, in fact, and that's why dogmatism in any camp distresses me, and why I long for even more ecumenical understanding and dialogue....we have come so far since 19th century, but there is far to go.
cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I tend to see Mary as the Christian ideal- as the prime example of one who has absolute faith in Jesus Christ. So perhaps her virginity, and Christian celibacy in general, can be seen in light of Matthew 22:30,
quote:
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
But it's actually the notion of her being the 'ideal' that causes some of the problems we've been adverting to. The reasoning seems to go that Mary is the 'ideal', so Mary should be emulated as much as possible. Mary was ever-virgin, so therefore part of emulating her is being ever-virgin. Avoid sex.
Exactly my problem with the whole thing. It all adds up to make sex a nasty, dirty, less-than-ideal thing that is tolerated in as much as it enables us to continue to produce babies, but certainly shouldn't be something that truly holy people should ever lower themselves to thinking about.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Barnabas62, you would make a good Anglican ... heck, you already make a better Anglican than most Anglicans I know ...
Incidentally, I'm with you on this one.
On the thread about the Unforgiveable Sin I've expressed some surprise at Kaplan's apparent view that God would make scripture as clear cut as possible - as if it were some kind of tick-box check-list of proof-texts.
Now, I'm not saying that Kaplan's view is as naive as that. Of course it isn't. And his sola scriptura approach has some weight if ... well, if you take that approach.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'm not sure that sola scriptura is as tenable a position as its proponents insist - at least, not on the populist level.
It would be interesting to consider whether there are any extant Patristic or early writings that query or question the perpetual virginity thing. I'm not sufficiently up on the corpus of literature to know whether they do one way or another.
Of course, all we have are the scriptures and the non-canonical texts and the testimony of the Christian community/ies down the years. We pays our money and we makes our choice ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and do believe that she had children after Jesus. However, why then did Jesus entrust Mary's care (presumably Joseph was older than Mary and was dead by then) to John and not one of Jesus' siblings?
I did suggest one possible answer to this on the previous page of this thread.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Barnabas62, you would make a good Anglican
You're not the first person to have said that to me recently. A friend of ours with similar outlook and background to me is with the Anglicans now. She observes wistfully that it's confirmed her nonconformism. She says the liberals make her conservative and the conservatives make her liberal. Stroppy but in a nice way, that's what we try to be.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and do believe that she had children after Jesus. However, why then did Jesus entrust Mary's care (presumably Joseph was older than Mary and was dead by then) to John and not one of Jesus' siblings?
I did suggest one possible answer to this on the previous page of this thread.
Sorry, I had missed it - thank you, I think that's close to my own views on the subject.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the thread about the Unforgiveable Sin I've expressed some surprise at Kaplan's apparent view that God would make scripture as clear cut as possible - as if it were some kind of tick-box check-list of proof-texts.
Now, I'm not saying that Kaplan's view is as naive as that. Of course it isn't. And his sola scriptura approach has some weight if ... well, if you take that approach.
Of course we have to live with the fact that the Bible is not presented as a catechism, or a textbook of systematic theology.
However occasionally, when reading or hearing poignant accounts such as Bunyan's of their sufferings as a result of believing that they are guilty of this sin, it is difficult - for me, anyway - to withold a certain wistful longing that the passages dealing with it had been a little less ambiguous.
As regards Mary's perpetual virginity, the problem is not that there are indications of it in the NT which might with some legitimacy have been developed by patristic and subsequent writers, but that it was invented ex nihilo, and then explanations developed to meet scriptural objections to it, which is an arse-about method of doing exegesis.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As regards Mary's perpetual virginity, the problem is not that there are indications of it in the NT which might with some legitimacy have been developed by patristic and subsequent writers, but that it was invented ex nihilo...
How can anybody make such a statement? Do you mean to say that it is not possible that there are things that were passed on from the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ that were not written down?
If a person adopts as a default position that anything not written down is to be greeted with distrust, then it would certainly explain the sort of dismissal of such things as the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God as something invented, and ascribing to its adherents questionable motives, as has been witnessed on this very thread. However, I would have to ask: What is the basis for such a position?
It comes back to my chicken in white sauce from earlier in the thread. As it happens, there is now an electronic, written record, in the form of my post, of my having bought this item from Tesco but if I had not posted that, and simply mentioned to somebody that I had bought it, it would seem very strange to me for that person to deny that it happened, refuse to believe me, and ascribe some ulterior motive to my having said it, all because it was not written down somewhere.
That approach just doesn't make sense to me at all.
The perpetual virginity makes sense doctrinally, it seems to have been the understanding since very early times, and there seems to be nothing that plausibly contradicts it. The only things posited against it have been misused words read out of context and implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective. With all of that borne in mind, personally, I don't see any reason to doubt it.
[ 16. August 2012, 12:35: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What Barnabas et al said, although I am not in the "don't know" camp. Just as RC's and Orthodox know, I don't ![[Smile]](smile.gif) In that Jungian sense.
Furthermore just as the apostles were not Trinitarian or creedal in any regard, they would not have been doctrinaire, dogmatic about Mary's perpetual virginity, if it had occured to any of them.
If it did, how ? Why ? When ? They're rhetorical of course !
It has more than a whiff of neoplatonism about it to me.
It all looks like emergence setting in stone to this neopomo!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable. Unless Mary is not being held up as the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness?
[ 16. August 2012, 13:36: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable.
Not inevitable, if you look at the whole of Catholic teaching.
The same Church that insists that Mary is ever-virgin and holy also insists that when married couples make love (in a way that expresses their marriage fully) that is also holy.
Of course, if you want a pic'n'mix theology and want one teaching without the other, then you may draw the 'inevitable' conclusion that sex is bad; or alternatively that Mary couldn't possibly be ever-virgin because she'd be missing out on sex. That's a silly result of the pic'n'mix theology, though, not of the authentic teaching!
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable. Unless Mary is not being held up as the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness?
Yes, Mary is the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can. But it doesn't follow that any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a lessening of holiness. That's just crazy. If we really thought that way, we wouldn't be using computers, driving automobiles, or eating chocolate. And I can assure you that my lifestyle includes all those things, and many others that would have been entirely unfathomable to the Theotokos.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As regards Mary's perpetual virginity, the problem is not that there are indications of it in the NT which might with some legitimacy have been developed by patristic and subsequent writers, but that it was invented ex nihilo, and then explanations developed to meet scriptural objections to it, which is an arse-about method of doing exegesis.
Ex nihilo? Hardly. To use your own metaphor, I think you have an arse-about-face view of early church history.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable. Unless Mary is not being held up as the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness?
That just illustrates my point, though. It only naturally flows from the doctrine if you approach it from the position you have described, specifically that "the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness".
This is something that I have never heard, read, or otherwise encountered in any Orthodox prayer, hymn, sermon, podcast, writing, or anything else pertaining to the Mother of God. I cannot speak with certainty about the Catholic position but I would imagine that this would also be something with which they, too, would be uncomfortable.
Yes, we honour her as Mother of God, and we hail her as more honourable then the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim, but that is only because of the unique place of honour that we believe God has granted her in the economy of our salvation. We believe that through her voluntary co-operation with the will of God in her life, she has reached a state of holiness that each and every one of us can reach by similarly willingly and obediently embracing God's will and seeking to model our own lives and being on that.
None of that in any way suggests that the will of God in the life of the Mother of God is the same as the will of God in your life, or in my life, or in Josephine's, or Kaplan Corday's, or anybody else's life, and that we must therefore do exactly as she did. Yes, we seek to emulate her humility, her obedience to God, and those good qualities that all Christians should seek to incorporate into their lives. However, none of us is called to give birth to the Saviour of the world as she was. None of us have our reproductive organs dedicated to that purpose as she was. That doesn't make our lives dirty, or anything like that, touching on our sexuality or anything else. This is not an Orthodox understanding of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God.
Not all of us are called to a life of monasticism, or of marriage, or of parenthood, or of priesthood, or of taking the Gospel to lands that have not been evangelised, or any of the other ways in which God's will is worked out in the lives of different people, and yet the deifying grace of God is open to all of us, despite the fact that our lives, in all of their variety, are not the same as that of the Mother of God.
I can only repeat that this idea that we must be in every single way like her and that if our expression of our sexuality is not, then it is dirty, is not a natural implication of belief in the perpetual virginity. It is something that people can and do read into it but for those of us who subscribe to it, it is just not there.
[ 16. August 2012, 14:16: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think that any Christian traditions - even those I might personally disagree with, developed ex-nihilo, Kaplan. Sure, there's certainly an element with the Mary thing of reading things back into the text - or, more charitably, extrapolating things in a way that might appear to some of us to be putting 2 and 2 together and making 6 or 8 ...
There is a 'logic' about the RC and the Orthodox position that derives from the general thrust of the tradition - a trajectory that continues from scripture and the earliest traditions if you like - which explains the development of the later doctrines. You can see the same thing happening with the Trinity.
The RC and Orthodox positions weren't simply dreamed up one day, they developed over time of course. As Barnabas62 has said, there were people around with a highly developed Marian view before the canon of scripture was agreed. That's not to say they are right or wrong, just to acknowledge that this is how these things work.
It's how canonicity works too. To use an OT example, various Egyptian proverbs have found their way into the canonical Hebrew Book of Proverbs. They weren't written or developed by Jews, but by Egyptians. The Israelites used them, realised their wisdom and then incorporated them into their own scriptures. Does this mean they are any less inspired than the rest of the canon? No, of course not. It was the community who discerned and judged whether to include them or not.
By the same sort of process the NT scriptures and subsequent doctrines were developed and discerned.
It may sound a very Catholic thing to say, and I shock myself sometimes how 'catholic' I'm sounding these days, but I can't see how it happened any other way. The thing is, we can't prove it either way. We pays our money, we makes our choice.
Personally, I must admit, I don't find the scriptural evidence conclusive one way or the other - we have to interpret what's there. We all interpret the scriptures through the lens of our respective traditions. Thee and me are conditioned to interpreting it in a Protestant way - hence we'll say, 'Nah, this perpetual virginity thing, it's completely daft, it's not there in the scriptures at all ...'
Which, from an RC or Orthodox perspective is the wrong kind of question to ask.
Ultimately, I'm not sure it makes any difference - although I would say that it is axiomatic that a high emphasis on virginity is going, at some times and some places, to lead to a distorted view of sexuality.
Equally, using the Bunyan example you've given, I'd also say that a very strong Calvinistic emphasis and concern about one's own personal salvation will ultimately lead - with some individuals - to morbidity and a heart-rending concern about whether they've committed the Unforgiveable Sin. All these things come with our respective territories.
The trick is to hold them all together in a balanced way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable. Unless Mary is not being held up as the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness?
Yes, Mary is the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can. But it doesn't follow that any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a lessening of holiness. That's just crazy. If we really thought that way, we wouldn't be using computers, driving automobiles, or eating chocolate. And I can assure you that my lifestyle includes all those things, and many others that would have been entirely unfathomable to the Theotokos.
You are Philip Larkin and I claim my five pounds!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I can't help but think that the complexity of the argument here rather indicates that some of the terms we use in relation to Mary do need revisiting, if we are to help everyday people in their devotions and prayers.
While I am aware of the teaching by some Christians about the perpetual virginity I cannot see what it has to say to women today, why is it of relevance. I guess the question, which I honestly ask, and do not mean to offend is - so what?
Mother of those imprisoned unjustly
Mother of the marginalised
Mother before marriage
All seem more helpful terms than 'ever virgin' or 'inviolate'.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday, I will take your non-answer to my question to be admission of guilt.
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
While I am aware of the teaching by some Christians about the perpetual virginity I cannot see what it has to say to women today, why is it of relevance. I guess the question, which I honestly ask, and do not mean to offend is - so what?
Well, if something is true, it needn't have a "so what." As the Scrumpster above said, he bought chicken in white sauce yesterday. So what? What happened, happened.
But one lesson here is that, pace the shrill screaming of every media outlet in our society, you don't have to have sex to be a fulfilled person.
quote:
Mother of those imprisoned unjustly
Mother of the marginalised
Mother before marriage
All seem more helpful terms than 'ever virgin' or 'inviolate'.
Then call her that. You don't need our permission.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It has more than a whiff of neoplatonism about it to me.
With all due respect, and I do respect your opinions (when I understand them), virtually anything you disagree with smells of neoplatonism to you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Mother of those imprisoned unjustly
Mother of the marginalised
Mother before marriage
Actually, that brings something into rather clear focus - which I'm quietly kicking myself for not raising before.
People are objecting to calling Mary 'virgin' on the grounds that it in some way makes sex unclean. Yet we call Mary mother, and with just as much fervour (and in the Hail Mary, almost certainly the most common invocation of Mary, we don't actually mention her virginity).
So we make every bit as much of Mary's motherhood as of her virginity, and indeed her virginity is dependent on her motherhood. If (as some have claimed) the implication of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is that to be 'properly holy' a woman has to stay a virgin, then this gives a contradictory statement: to be properly holy, you can be a mother. [1]
And for women who have not been consecrated to be Theotokos, the mother of God - that is for every other woman - being a mother involves sex. And the Church teaches that sex (used properly, of course, like any other gift) is good, and holy.
So understanding and knowing Mary as Virgin and Mother is actually pretty radically opposed to any concept that sex is 'dirty'.
[1] And, of course, given Mary's life, you also can be widowed, bereaved of a child, adopted mother, and many other womanly things; and still be holy, still revered.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I suppose my main problem with Mary's holiness translating as perpetual virginity and the idea of her carrying Jesus meaning any further children would defile her holiness, is that this is apparently not done with anything else in Jesus' earthly life. It was by God's grace that Mary conceived Jesus, and it was by God's grace that Jesus was born in a stable, yet the stable was presumably used again to keep animals - why could Mary not have further children? It also goes against the whole theme of humility and unimpressive outward appearance concealing God's grace within the NT. After all, a couple with only one child in those times would be a lot more remarkable and gaining of attention than the large family I believe the Gospels say Jesus had. I see no reason to doubt the face value of the text saying Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus. It supports the sheer surprise everyone had that Jesus was the Lord and Messiah - he must have come from an outwardly very ordinary family, which for 1st Century Jews would have been a large one.
Whilst, of course, it is not impossible that Mary was a virgin her whole life, I see no reason why from the Scriptures that would be the automatic assumption. Tradition is certainly valuable, and I do believe Mary should have more honour in Protestant circles, but I don't believe her having children after Jesus dishonours her or God in any way or is supported by Scripture.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kaplan Corday, I will take your non-answer to my question to be admission of guilt.
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
While I am aware of the teaching by some Christians about the perpetual virginity I cannot see what it has to say to women today, why is it of relevance. I guess the question, which I honestly ask, and do not mean to offend is - so what?
Well, if something is true, it needn't have a "so what." As the Scrumpster above said, he bought chicken in white sauce yesterday. So what? What happened, happened.
But one lesson here is that, pace the shrill screaming of every media outlet in our society, you don't have to have sex to be a fulfilled person.
Surely that would be pace Genesis 2:24? Or Genesis 9:7? Our society is certainly damaged in the way it communicates about sex, but God makes it rather clear that marriage, sex and children is what he wants for his people. There are of course a few exceptions, but within the whole of Scripture they are very very few indeed. While I'm not saying that this is a reason why Mary definitely was not a virgin her whole life, Scripture makes it clear that most people are called by God to reproduce and therefore have sex.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
True, mousethief, true. The mandatory RC and Big O distinctives on Mary seem to echo Plato's ideal forms to me is all.
And may I ask for examples of where I disagree that are not shadows on the wall ?
Martin
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I suppose my main problem with Mary's holiness translating as perpetual virginity
Once again you have it the wrong way around. There is no historical evidence of her holiness being translated into perpetual virginity. This is a subtle form of Bulverism -- "you only think she's a perpetual virgin because you want to safeguard her holiness."
quote:
and the idea of her carrying Jesus meaning any further children would defile her holiness, is that this is apparently not done with anything else in Jesus' earthly life. It was by God's grace that Mary conceived Jesus, and it was by God's grace that Jesus was born in a stable, yet the stable was presumably used again to keep animals - why could Mary not have further children?
A fair question, as far as it goes. But it is a question of scale. He wasn't in the barn for terribly long (they were living in a house by the time the Wise Men showed up). He was in her womb for 9 months. She had the most intimate contact possible between two humans -- and she had that contact with the Man who is God -- for 40 weeks. A coal touching Isaiah's lips for seconds made him holy. She touched -- she surrounded, she exchanged fluids with, she nourished, she gave the human nature to -- the live coal that was God.
quote:
It also goes against the whole theme of humility and unimpressive outward appearance concealing God's grace within the NT.
This makes no sense to me at all. That God should choose something lowly to set apart, I understand. But that this should mean that the lowly thing is only temporarily set apart? I don't see the reasoning.
quote:
Whilst, of course, it is not impossible that Mary was a virgin her whole life, I see no reason why from the Scriptures that would be the automatic assumption.
It isn't the automatic assumption. This is looking at, again, as if people looked at the Scriptures and said, "Well, was she a virgin or not?" That's not what happened, as has been discussed here at length.
quote:
Tradition is certainly valuable, and I do believe Mary should have more honour in Protestant circles, but I don't believe her having children after Jesus dishonours her or God in any way or is supported by Scripture.
It's not a matter of honour, it's of being set apart for one special purpose.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
True, mousethief, true. The mandatory RC and Big O distinctives on Mary seem to echo Plato's ideal forms to me is all.
But how? Is anything held up as an example perforce an echo of Plato's forms? Did nobody ever say "emulate me" or "emulate this person over here" before Plato wrote the Republic?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Do you mean to say that it is not possible that there are things that were passed on from the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ that were not written down?
The dangers of pontificating on the basis of alleged "knowledge" of Christ's teaching which was not written down is demonstrated by the emergence of Gnosticism.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kaplan Corday, I will take your non-answer to my question to be admission of guilt.
Take it as my response to both the puerility of your question and your faux-judicial sense of self-importance and entitlement as demonstrated in this latest post.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Do you mean to say that it is not possible that there are things that were passed on from the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ that were not written down?
The dangers of pontificating on the basis of alleged "knowledge" of Christ's teaching which was not written down is demonstrated by the emergence of Gnosticism.
So?
The fact that a good thing has the possibility of being corrupted by people who wish to do so does not mean we should do away with it.
By that argument, youth groups and ministries in churches should be shut down because some people have been known to use them as an opportunity for child abuse.
Instead of throwing red herrings into the conversation, perhaps you might respond to the actual point of my reply to you, in which I pointed out how incomprehensible some people might find your line of reasoning.
[ 16. August 2012, 20:12: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Do you mean to say that it is not possible that there are things that were passed on from the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ that were not written down?
The dangers of pontificating on the basis of alleged "knowledge" of Christ's teaching which was not written down is demonstrated by the emergence of Gnosticism.
True - apart from the detail that we are not talking about Christ's teaching here.
But can I also point out that the internet is awash with people who believe crackpot conspiracy theories precisely because something is written somewhere.
The approach gets us nowhere. Written or oral are both subject to scrutiny, which is what people are trying to do here.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
