homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Perpetual virginity and vaginal birth (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Perpetual virginity and vaginal birth
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What a bizarre thing to say Kaplan Corday. The Church existed for 1500 years before the book according to the book. And the Bride of Christ existed for over a century before the New Testament existed.

(Wherever there is any kind of strong polarization, I strongly polarize against it [Biased] and wish to repudiate that as well. (And yes, I've just decided on Oxford and not Cambridge after going Cambridge's way because Oxford doesn't have the courage of its convictions))

As for extra-canonical (the 27 books WE all agree on) Marianism (a hostile looking word), WE will never agree, CAN never agree and those disagreements cannot, MUST NOT be disrespected in the 'other', no matter how 'other' the 'other' wants to, has to be. No matter how hostile. BECAUSE of how IRREVOCABLY, implacably hostile.

Otherwise how shall all men know that we love one another?

Several years ago here in Purgatory a group of Marianists came together over THEIR Schism to say how sorry they felt for low candle Prods for not having Mary as they do.

Now THAT is hostile.

And I reacted to it in typical low candle Proddery (ooooh, the etymology! And no, you don't get it) by saying that I didn't see any of what they were talking about in the Bible.

Now THAT was hostile. It felt wrong then but there was a but. There isn't now.

I'm sorry.

My counter-hostility was not true counter-to-hostility. At was just hostility. And it could not provoke good works. It didn't.

It's taken years and the Holy Spirit in Brian McLaren above all for me to be granted repentance (mealy mouthed admittedly mousethief) of that.

And I have no expectation of my longing to be met.

That we love one another.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
I'd actually be quite interested in hearing proper arguments for and against the filioque clause, for example, but I don't hold high hopes of getting such arguments on this thread.

I have to confess that I did make an attempt on another thread here and here to make sense of its relevance.

I must say that I like the sound of the phrase "proper arguments". In fact this is what it all really boils down to: are doctrinal claims based on reason and evidence? It's all very well talking about Tradition and the Magisterium etc, but I just cannot understand how it is possible to truly accept an idea purely on authority, without actually being able to understand why it's true and what its relevance is. This is nothing to do with rebellion against "big-T" Tradition, but a simple matter of reality. As I said in another thread, if I was told by an authority that 2+2=5, then it doesn't matter how submissive and obedient I am to that authority, I simply cannot accept that proposition, because it makes no logical sense. It doesn't fit reality. Therefore it is an inherently useless concept. I can do nothing with it. I cannot obey it, even I wanted to.

So the bare assertions of those who look to authority alone are really quite meaningless in the absence of proper reasoning.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Married to whom?

Joseph of course!
No. They were only betrothed, not actually married.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the canonical, oecumenical narrative they marry after the most solemn betrothal.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eh?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What a bizarre thing to say Kaplan Corday. The Church existed for 1500 years before the book according to the book. And the Bride of Christ existed for over a century before the New Testament existed.


The church's "birthday" is usually recognised as Pentecost, circa 30AD, and we would know nothing about the event itself, or its meaning, but for the descriptions of it written a few years later and incorporated into the NT.

The NT documents were written between approximately 45AD and 95AD.

What was that about "bizarre"?

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just as I said Kaplan Corday. The Church is not a product of the Bible. And where it is, it is horribly distorted by culture. As it is without it.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Married to whom?

Joseph of course!
No. They were only betrothed, not actually married.
The question is no different. Is getting betrothed consistent with having already dedicated yourself to virginity in Jewish culture?

Because in Christian culture it isn't. Priests and nuns do not get engaged any more than they get married. The point I am making does not depend on whether or not the wedding ceremony had actually taken place yet.

--------------------
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
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jewish betrothal.

Therefore betrothal almost inevitably led to marriage, and the idea that Joseph and Mary's betrothal did not lead to fully fledged marriage would indicate that the Bible is seriously misleading by giving us a false impression - especially in the light of Matthew 1:25.

Yes, I suppose it is logically possible to work out a case against this view, but the whole tenor of the information in the Bible decreases the probability of that theory. In fact, the only way such an improbable and unusual state of affairs could be justified is through sheer dogmatism and authority - hence the pronouncements of tradition.

As far as I am concerned that is not an honest method of handling evidence, and certainly it is well beneath the dignity and holiness of God to give us a false impression from His Word.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Ad Orientem: "Eh?" eh?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
The question is no different. Is getting betrothed consistent with having already dedicated yourself to virginity in Jewish culture?

Because in Christian culture it isn't. Priests and nuns do not get engaged any more than they get married. The point I am making does not depend on whether or not the wedding ceremony had actually taken place yet.

[Overused]

Excellent point.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
@Ad Orientem: "Eh?" eh?

What "canonical, ecumenical narrative"?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The canonical ecumenical one. The one we overlap on. The one that is a subset of the ones that has things in it nobody else agrees on as they're tribal.

[ 04. May 2013, 11:55: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Married to whom?

Joseph of course!
No. They were only betrothed, not actually married.
The question is no different. Is getting betrothed consistent with having already dedicated yourself to virginity in Jewish culture?

Because in Christian culture it isn't. Priests and nuns do not get engaged any more than they get married. The point I am making does not depend on whether or not the wedding ceremony had actually taken place yet.

The Protoevangelium of James gives the answer.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Obviously getting betrothed isn't the same as being dedicated to virginity. At least, not normally. But according to the Infancy Gospel again, this was far from a normal betrothal.

You need to read the first 16 Chapters of the Infancy Gospel to get the context.

Of course it is non-canonical, but that does not mean that Orthodox Tradition takes no notice of it. The opposite appears to be true.

This story of the old man, becoming engaged to a specially blessed 12 year old girl sounds so foreign to our ears. Here is a bit of the flavour of it.

quote:
Chapter 8

(1) And her parents went down, marveling at and praising and glorifying the Lord God because the child had not turned back to look at them. (2) While Mary was in the temple of the Lord, she was fed like a dove and received food from the hand of an angel.
(3) When she turned twelve, a group of priests took counsel together, saying, "Look, Mary has been in the temple of the Lord twelve years. (4) What should we do about her now, so that she does not defile the sanctuary of the Lord our God?" (5) And they said to the high priest, "You have stood at the altar of the Lord. Go in and pray about her. And if the Lord God reveals anything to you, we will do it."

(6) And the priest went in taking the vestment with twelve bells into the holy of holies and prayed about her. Suddenly, an angel of the Lord stood before him, saying, "Zachariah, Zachariah, depart from here and gather the widowers of the people and let each one carry a staff. (8) And the one whom the Lord God points out with a sign, she will be his wife." (9) So the heralds went out to the whole surrounding area of Judea and the trumpet of the Lord rang out and all the men rushed in.



Chapter 9

(1) Throwing down his ax, Joseph went out to meet them. (2) And after they had gathered together with their rods, they went to the high priest. (3) After receiving everyone's rod, the high priest went into the temple and prayed. (4) When he was finished with the prayer, he took the rods and went out and gave them to each man, (5) but there was no sign among them. Finally, Joseph took his rod. (6) Suddenly, a dove came out of the rod and stood on Joseph's head. (7) And the high priest said, "Joseph! Joseph! You have been chosen by lot to take the virgin into your own keeping."

(8) And Joseph replied, saying, "I have sons and am old, while she is young. I will not be ridiculed among the children of Israel."

(9) And the high priest said, "Joseph, fear the Lord your God and remember what God did to Dathan and Abiron and Kore, how the earth split open and swallowed them because of their rebellion. (10) Now fear God, Joseph, so that these things do not happen in your house."

(11) Fearing God, Joseph took her into his own possession. (12) And he said to her, "Mary, I took you from the temple of the Lord and now I bring you into my house. I am going out to build houses, but I will come back to you. The Lord will protect you."

[xposted with Ad Orientem]

[ 04. May 2013, 11:59: 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
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Forgive me if we've been before, but if the perpetual virginity of Mary (after the birth of Jesus, of course) is in the Bible, I just can't see it. But I can't see why I ought to go out of my way to reject it either, and it's clearly an important belief for the Church going back to ancient times. So I rather see that rejecting it requires more energy than accepting it.

So for those who reject it, why should I go through the effort of doing so? I'm not offended enough at the idea of virginity all by itself.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The canonical ecumenical one. The one we overlap on. The one that is a subset of the ones that has things in it nobody else agrees on as they're tribal.

Sorry, eh?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zach82: There is an alternative to that false dichotomy.

[ 04. May 2013, 12:01: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Protoevangelium of James gives the answer.

It would be helpful if you spelt things out more than this, rather than assuming that your Protestant audience has the Protoevangelium of James committed to memory.

Is this the same thing that Barnabas has just quoted from?

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aye orfeo. I was going to say that anadromously. It all depends on your non-ecumenical canon.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Protoevangelium of James gives the answer.

It would be helpful if you spelt things out more than this, rather than assuming that your Protestant audience has the Protoevangelium of James committed to memory.

Is this the same thing that Barnabas has just quoted from?

Yes.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Zach82: There is an alternative to that false dichotomy.

By all means spell it out.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is, orfeo. It is an interesting source (though not the only one) of the Orthodox Tradition re Mary and Joseph.

The boundary between canonical and non-canonical is not so sharply defined if you believe that the Church is the guardian of Apostolic belief, rather than the canon is the guardian of church belief.

This is an obvious point, but easily overlooked.

--------------------
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
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aye orfeo. I was going to say that anadromously. It all depends on your non-ecumenical canon. One cannot escape hostility can one ? Whatever we have to believe is our narrative, including our non-canonical or extra/super/supra/led in to all truth-canonical canons.

And Zach82, [Biased] eh ? One cannot escape dichotomies can one ? And ALL are false I suspect.

And Ad Orientem, what ?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Obviously getting betrothed isn't the same as being dedicated to virginity. At least, not normally. But according to the Infancy Gospel again, this was far from a normal betrothal.

Of course, the next issue becomes whether this is logically consistent with the gospel accounts of being betrothed...

We're obviously dealing with something less straightforward than 2+2=5, but I agree with the thrust of EtymologicalEvangelical's thoughts there. It's rather more akin to those logic puzzles where you have to assign 5 owners to 5 houses with 5 different colours, or to Sudoku puzzles, both of which involve comparing known facts to possible facts and seeing if they're consistent. If they're not, then the proposed fact has to go. Alternatively, you might have 2 propositions, where one has to assess whether it's possible for both to be true or whether if one is true, the other is necessarily false.

I would have to study the texts in rather more detail than I have time/inclination for at present (I'm not going to print this stuff out and take it on my holiday...), but the question that immediately springs to mind is: if it was known that this was not a normal betrothal, as explained in the Infancy Gospel, why do the canonical gospels fail to indicate that this was an unusual betrothal? The canonical gospels address the issue by explaining that Mary was pledged to be married. Why leave it at that, if there was in fact more to be said than that? Why place in the reader's mind an image of betrothal if it was not a normal betrothal?

That's the logic difficult I'm facing.

It's worth emphasising that I am currently tackling only one of the arguments put forward for perpetual virginity: that when Mary said "I am a virgin" she not only meant "I am currently a virgin" but that she meant "I am dedicated to being a virgin". Which inevitably brings with it a further claim that Matthew 1:25 doesn't just mean "not with her until after Jesus' birth", but "not with her ever".

It's not the only possible explanation for perpetual virginity, but mousethief's link indicated it is the one used by Pope John Paul II so it's evidently a pretty important line of thinking.

--------------------
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
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The "virginal betrothal thing" does cast an interesting light on Joseph's behavior. Hypothetically, he agrees to Mary this bizarre girl who's never going to be a full wife to him, but when she turns up pregnant he rightly assumes that everyone has tried to pull one over on him. Rather than just bizarre, this pretense of virginal holiness line is all a perverse sham. Betterto ship this lunatic back home... until an angel of the Lord reveals to him the truth.

I can't say if it's true or not, but it's a story of a lot more complexity. It introduces an element of the offensive otherness of holiness.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's an anachronism at work, orfeo. The canon simply did not have the same significance at that time as it does for protestants, following the Reformation. It was a part of the "normalising" processes, a significant part, but not the only part.

The Ecumenical Councils are the demonstration of the fact that when there were disputes over the nature and meaning of the Apostolic Tradition, they were not just resolved by what was in the canon. If that were so, for example, the Creeds would not have assumed the importance they did; the exact wordings would not have been fought over so fiercely.

The issue was protecting the "faith once given" from heresy. This wasn't just a matter of exegesis from texts, but people meeting and wrestling over what was right. Under political pressure as well. How well was the Church exercising its God-given guardianship over the faithful deposit left by the Apostles. Reason, scripture, politics, horse-trading, formations of alliances, denigration, even sheer skullduggery, were all a part of the Ecumenical Council processes. There were power-battles going on as well.

Early church history is fascinating stuff, but you do have to adopt a historical-critical approach to the record to "decode it". Well, at least IMO. But then as someone who sees great value in that approach, I would say that.

[ 04. May 2013, 12:34: 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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There's an anachronism at work, orfeo. The canon simply did not have the same significance at that time as it does for protestants, following the Reformation. It was a part of the "normalising" processes, a significant part, but not the only part.

The Ecumenical Councils are the demonstration of the fact that when there were disputes over the nature and meaning of the Apostolic Tradition, they were not just resolved by what was in the canon. If that were so, for example, the Creeds would not have assumed the importance they did; the exact wordings would not have been fought over so fiercely.

The issue was protecting the "faith once given" from heresy. This wasn't just a matter of exegesis from texts, but people meeting and wrestling over what was right. Under political pressure as well. How well was the Church exercising its God-given guardianship over the faithful deposit left by the Apostles. Reason, scripture, politics, horse-trading, formations of alliances, denigration, even sheer skullduggery, were all a part of the Ecumenical Council processes. There were power-battles going on as well.

Early church history is fascinating stuff, but you do have to adopt a historical-critical approach to the record to "decode it". Well, at least IMO. But then as someone who sees great value in that approach, I would say that.

The gradual formation of the canon is one bit of early history that I am relatively well-versed in, thanks to a book by... I want to say F.F. Bruce? Can't find the book on the shelf at the moment.

So I'm aware it was a gradual process. But while the precise boundary of 'canon' and 'not canon' took time to fix, the general ranking of 'most reliable' through to 'least reliable' is often pretty consistent.

The Wikipedia article on that James gospel is rather interesting, in that it simultaneously indicates that Origen cited the book (not so explicitly on perpetual virginity, but on the related point that Jesus' brothers were from Joseph's previous marriage) and that Origen considered the book to be of dubious and recent provenance.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's this by F F Bruce

I do like his stuff; very clear writer. And I think he's right to point to the fact that the majority of the NT Canon contains books and writings thought to be "the best", or "essential reading". The issue is what's in the penumbra and what significance did it have for both the retention of Apostolic Tradition and its subsequent clarification. The Infancy Gospel shows that the penumbra was thought to contain some significant information which could be "prayed in aid" in the clarification of the Apostles teaching.

Stuff to be handled with care, but definitely not ignored just because it hadn't made the Top 28.

--------------------
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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it's this one although that's not the cover of the book I have (or had: where the blazes is it? my house is such a disaster area even with the massive clean-up operation I am currently engaged in, just mopped the kitchen floor, possibly for the first time since 2006...)

Yes, I think there is something to be said for not simply 'ignoring' the penumbra, and certainly in the Anglican church here in Australia at least some of them are acknowledged as 'useful' (again, don't have the list to hand). But if there's difficulty reconciling a penumbral text to a canonical one, I'm obviously going to prefer the canonical one.

The question is, just how difficult is the difficulty?

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe it's time to stop posting, mate! At least for today.

And do enjoy your three month vac. Looks good.

(I've read that book, too, BTW. Classic F F)

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
At least some sources in favour of perpetual virginity argue that Mary had already dedicated herself to virginity - before Gabriel turned up.

To me this is the missing piece that explains why she would be confused when told she was going to have a child.

"You're going to have a child."
"I'm a virgin."
"Well, yes, but you won't be forever."

or

"You're going to have a child."
"Cool, so you're saying I'll be married soon?"

Absent something weird like dedication to virginity, telling a sexually mature 1st century Palestinian Jewish girl she was going to have a child is hardly earth-shattering, and certainly not confusing.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Is getting betrothed consistent with having already dedicated yourself to virginity in Jewish culture?

Is having a son consistent with being a virgin? It's a mistake to try to make this case TOO ordinary. It's an extraordinary case. This reminds me of those who argue Jesus couldn't have been a rabbi without a wife and a minivan full of kids, because there just weren't celibate rabbis in those days, therefore, Jesus had a wife and a minivan full of kids.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So I'm aware it was a gradual process. But while the precise boundary of 'canon' and 'not canon' took time to fix, the general ranking of 'most reliable' through to 'least reliable' is often pretty consistent.

Was "reliability" the yardstick (metrestick) the people who were wrangling about the canon were using? I don't remember ever reading that to be the case. Apostolicity in the very narrow sense of "written by an apostle" was far more the order of the day. Partly because "reliability" is something of a modern concept, and partly because nobody at the time would have denied that some of writings we now call the "Apostolic Fathers" were anything other than 100% reliable.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
28?!

And Zach82, you HAVE added another facet to be accepted in the acceptance of otherness: Non-acceptance and non-rejection. I'm a non-acceptor now on the basis of meaninglessness for me as I am on any and all mandatory denominational distinctives, which is down to my Aspergeresque ways I'm sure.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643

 - Posted      Profile for loggats   Email loggats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why is dedication to virginity being characterised as 'weird'? I posted a link to a source earlier on in this thread where Jewish sources were used to show that a group of consecrated virgins with Temple duties existed, well into the Second Temple period.

--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."

Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What a bizarre thing to say Kaplan Corday. The Church existed for 1500 years before the book according to the book. And the Bride of Christ existed for over a century before the New Testament existed.


The church's "birthday" is usually recognised as Pentecost, circa 30AD,
No. From my blog:
quote:
Pentecost is NOT ‘the birthday of the church’. To say that it is to rubbish Judaism. The root of the word ‘church;’ – ecclesia, means ‘called out.’ And God has been calling people out of situations long before the time of Jesus, Abraham for example. Diarmaid MacCulloch’s History of Christianity begins further back than Abraham, with the Ancient Greeks and their concept of the Logos.....‘Church’ in Greek is ‘ecclesia’. It translates the Hebrew ‘qahal’. The ‘church’ is found in:

2 Chron. 23:3: ‘All the congregation (qahal) made a covenant with the king.’ The Septuagint translates the qahal, ‘ecclesia Iouda’, ‘the church of Judah’, adding this explanatory word which isn’t in English versions – to show that ‘ecclesia’ now referred to embraced the Jews only.

After the return from Babylon, qahal/ecclesia is used of those Jews who returned – Ezra 2:64; Neh. 5:13; 7:66; 8:17. They were all that was left of the original ‘ecclesia’. (For more detail, see http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/israel.htm)

It is REnewal, not NEW. So Ephesians 3:16: This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Theologically, the Orthodox do not consider Pentecost to be the “birthday” of the Church; they see the Church as having existed before the creation of the world (cf. The Shepherd of Hermas)

‘It is a common misconception that the church began in Acts 2 …..Peter preached the first gospel message and 3,000 responded in faith and were baptized. But if you asked them what they were doing, they would not think they were starting something new. Rather, they believed they were fulfilling their destiny as the people of God by accepting their own Messiah in fidelity to the covenant of Abraham. They moved forward by going back to their ordained roots. They were not the church as opposed to Israel, but the church as the manifestation of God’s plan for Israel. Pentecost neither started the church nor ended the nation. Rather, it continued the tradition, writing a new chapter in the eschatological history of God. In other words, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit did not create something new but renewed something old.’ http://markmoore.org/330/2009/06/pentecost-is-not-birthday-of-church.html



--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
or Mary understood perfectly well what was being said, that she was just about to be pregnant.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry Martin, top 27. If it had made it, it would have been top 28. (Books in the NT if I confused anyone else).

--------------------
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
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
At least some sources in favour of perpetual virginity argue that Mary had already dedicated herself to virginity - before Gabriel turned up.

To me this is the missing piece that explains why she would be confused when told she was going to have a child.

"You're going to have a child."
"I'm a virgin."
"Well, yes, but you won't be forever."

But she does not say "I am virgin" she says "I do not know a man". She could have said that in the Greek, the word is used in Matthew 1:23.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So I'm aware it was a gradual process. But while the precise boundary of 'canon' and 'not canon' took time to fix, the general ranking of 'most reliable' through to 'least reliable' is often pretty consistent.

Was "reliability" the yardstick (metrestick) the people who were wrangling about the canon were using? I don't remember ever reading that to be the case. Apostolicity in the very narrow sense of "written by an apostle" was far more the order of the day. Partly because "reliability" is something of a modern concept, and partly because nobody at the time would have denied that some of writings we now call the "Apostolic Fathers" were anything other than 100% reliable.
It depends what you think I meant by 'reliability'. They definitely used a number of 'reliability' type factors in assessing whether they thought something WAS written by an apostle when it claimed to be. The lists that we have from people like Origen and I think Eusebius have comments like 'this only seems to have turned up recently', or 'this isn't in the right style'.

--------------------
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      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Why is dedication to virginity being characterised as 'weird'? I posted a link to a source earlier on in this thread where Jewish sources were used to show that a group of consecrated virgins with Temple duties existed, well into the Second Temple period.

Speaking personally, I didn't characterise dedication to virginity as being weird. I characterised being simultaneously dedicated to permanent virginity and being betrothed to be married as weird. The point is the juxtaposition, not either thing on its own.

--------------------
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      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
At least some sources in favour of perpetual virginity argue that Mary had already dedicated herself to virginity - before Gabriel turned up.

To me this is the missing piece that explains why she would be confused when told she was going to have a child.

"You're going to have a child."
"I'm a virgin."
"Well, yes, but you won't be forever."

or

"You're going to have a child."
"Cool, so you're saying I'll be married soon?"

Absent something weird like dedication to virginity, telling a sexually mature 1st century Palestinian Jewish girl she was going to have a child is hardly earth-shattering, and certainly not confusing.

As MartinPC has picked up, telling her she is going to have a child NOW is earth-shattering. There's a world of difference between someone rocking up and saying "I see 4 children in your future" and someone rocking up and saying "congratulations, you're about to have a bun in the oven".

--------------------
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
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643

 - Posted      Profile for loggats   Email loggats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Why is dedication to virginity being characterised as 'weird'? I posted a link to a source earlier on in this thread where Jewish sources were used to show that a group of consecrated virgins with Temple duties existed, well into the Second Temple period.

Speaking personally, I didn't characterise dedication to virginity as being weird. I characterised being simultaneously dedicated to permanent virginity and being betrothed to be married as weird. The point is the juxtaposition, not either thing on its own.
The juxtaposition is strange, but what about the situation isn't rather odd? A virgin gives birth to the Son of God, and she's protected (not least from a society unable to understand her consecrated virginity before, during and after the birth of her son) by a man divinely directed in his capacity as guardian.

--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."

Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643

 - Posted      Profile for loggats   Email loggats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
At least some sources in favour of perpetual virginity argue that Mary had already dedicated herself to virginity - before Gabriel turned up.

To me this is the missing piece that explains why she would be confused when told she was going to have a child.

"You're going to have a child."
"I'm a virgin."
"Well, yes, but you won't be forever."

or

"You're going to have a child."
"Cool, so you're saying I'll be married soon?"

Absent something weird like dedication to virginity, telling a sexually mature 1st century Palestinian Jewish girl she was going to have a child is hardly earth-shattering, and certainly not confusing.

As MartinPC has picked up, telling her she is going to have a child NOW is earth-shattering. There's a world of difference between someone rocking up and saying "I see 4 children in your future" and someone rocking up and saying "congratulations, you're about to have a bun in the oven".
But these aren't bits of random dialogue or snatches of overheard conversation. They are divinely inspired theological statements, and have a quality beyond the quite pedestrian readings that seem to be popular in a lot of the exegesis I've read here.

--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."

Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Why is dedication to virginity being characterised as 'weird'? I posted a link to a source earlier on in this thread where Jewish sources were used to show that a group of consecrated virgins with Temple duties existed, well into the Second Temple period.

Speaking personally, I didn't characterise dedication to virginity as being weird. I characterised being simultaneously dedicated to permanent virginity and being betrothed to be married as weird. The point is the juxtaposition, not either thing on its own.
The juxtaposition is strange, but what about the situation isn't rather odd? A virgin gives birth to the Son of God, and she's protected (not least from a society unable to understand her consecrated virginity before, during and after the birth of her son) by a man divinely directed in his capacity as guardian.
The point doesn't seem to have registered so I'm going to spell it out: ANYONE being betrothed and dedicated to virginity at the same time is odd, BEFORE any angels rock up to announce divine pregnancies.

Understand? It is inherently odd. Not odd because it is part of a miraculous story. It is an odd setting for the miraculous story in the first place.

It is almost developing into a suggestion that God's entire plan for the salvation of mankind would have foundered if there wasn't a girl who did something completely and utterly strange. As if no 'mere' dedicated virgin would do, only the one who went and got herself engaged into the bargain as well.

--------------------
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      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
At least some sources in favour of perpetual virginity argue that Mary had already dedicated herself to virginity - before Gabriel turned up.

To me this is the missing piece that explains why she would be confused when told she was going to have a child.

"You're going to have a child."
"I'm a virgin."
"Well, yes, but you won't be forever."

or

"You're going to have a child."
"Cool, so you're saying I'll be married soon?"

Absent something weird like dedication to virginity, telling a sexually mature 1st century Palestinian Jewish girl she was going to have a child is hardly earth-shattering, and certainly not confusing.

As MartinPC has picked up, telling her she is going to have a child NOW is earth-shattering. There's a world of difference between someone rocking up and saying "I see 4 children in your future" and someone rocking up and saying "congratulations, you're about to have a bun in the oven".
But these aren't bits of random dialogue or snatches of overheard conversation. They are divinely inspired theological statements, and have a quality beyond the quite pedestrian readings that seem to be popular in a lot of the exegesis I've read here.
Yes. And?

Reading Gabriel's announcement as "you are going to have a child while you're still a virgin" is hardly turning it into a pedestrian statement. The only thing that turns it into a pedestrian statement is "you're going to have kids someday". A reading that mousethief is suggesting is how he would read it were it not for Mary piping up and saying she's a perpetual virgin.

It's certainly NOT the reading of Gabriel's statement that I'M arguing for.

--------------------
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
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643

 - Posted      Profile for loggats   Email loggats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Why is dedication to virginity being characterised as 'weird'? I posted a link to a source earlier on in this thread where Jewish sources were used to show that a group of consecrated virgins with Temple duties existed, well into the Second Temple period.

Speaking personally, I didn't characterise dedication to virginity as being weird. I characterised being simultaneously dedicated to permanent virginity and being betrothed to be married as weird. The point is the juxtaposition, not either thing on its own.
The juxtaposition is strange, but what about the situation isn't rather odd? A virgin gives birth to the Son of God, and she's protected (not least from a society unable to understand her consecrated virginity before, during and after the birth of her son) by a man divinely directed in his capacity as guardian.
The point doesn't seem to have registered so I'm going to spell it out: ANYONE being betrothed and dedicated to virginity at the same time is odd, BEFORE any angels rock up to announce divine pregnancies.

Understand? It is inherently odd. Not odd because it is part of a miraculous story. It is an odd setting for the miraculous story in the first place.

It is almost developing into a suggestion that God's entire plan for the salvation of mankind would have foundered if there wasn't a girl who did something completely and utterly strange. As if no 'mere' dedicated virgin would do, only the one who went and got herself engaged into the bargain as well.

Well, no other female would have done - that much is true. Only Mary, the immaculate conception.

--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."

Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Well, no other female would have done - that much is true. Only Mary, the immaculate conception.

This is a whole other doctrine, but it again has the flavour of telling women that there's something wrong with them.

Because apparently God can come down and live amongst sinful human beings for over 30 years, and eat with them and drink with them and touch them, but being in a sin-affected womb is just too icky for God to contemplate.

--------------------
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
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643

 - Posted      Profile for loggats   Email loggats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
Well, no other female would have done - that much is true. Only Mary, the immaculate conception.

This is a whole other doctrine, but it again has the flavour of telling women that there's something wrong with them.

Because apparently God can come down and live amongst sinful human beings for over 30 years, and eat with them and drink with them and touch them, but being in a sin-affected womb is just too icky for God to contemplate.

This obsession with denigrating women is a little tiring. No man was immaculately conceived (born with sanctifying grace) either, only Mary of all humanity. The greater the work, the greater the merit and her cooperation in redemption was the greatest work possible to any creature. It's about another expression of God's love for humanity, but all you can seem to think of is icky wombs.

--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."

Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
No man was immaculately conceived (born with sanctifying grace) either, only Mary of all humanity.

Jesus?

--------------------
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
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643

 - Posted      Profile for loggats   Email loggats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
No man was immaculately conceived (born with sanctifying grace) either, only Mary of all humanity.

Jesus?
Jesus isn't a creature, He is Begotten not made.

--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."

Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools