Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

[racer]

Because of the fall we barely resemble Him. In the beginning, though, it was not like this. Adam was made in the image of God and was going to become a god . . . everyday, growing closer to His creator, becoming more and more perfect. Would Adam ever attain to the perfection of God. No. He would infinitely grow closer to Him . . . like when we get to Heaven, we will be on a continual journey towards God.

So, who was made in His image? Adam or Eve? Was God male or female?

My point was that being made in His image, denotes virginity.

That’s all it denotes?

Christ knew no sexual relation, nor did His mother. They are both likened to Adam and Eve before the fall, in Paradise.

Jesus was not married, therefore He would not know sexual relations. How can you say that Jesus and Mary (mother and Son) are likened to Adam and Eve (Husband and wife)? You have no basis for the belief that Adam and Eve would not procreate. You have God telling them---prior to the fall---be fruitful and multiply? How were they to do this?

 

[racer]

Ye are gods

Polytheism.

 

[racer]

All the talk is centered around a new belief that Adam and Eve had sexual relations prior to the fall. This has not ever been the teachings of the Church and in Gen 4:1 is when married life began and Cain was conceived, not before.

Eve was identified as Adam’s wife immediately after her creation. Your assertion that this was never been taught by the church is unsubstantiated. Your comments regarding this are the first I’ve ever heard of such a thing.

The argument is that if Eve did have relations prior to the fall, there were no children produced from them; thusly, she would have had fertility issues (highly unlikely given her previous perfect state).

This is a huge baseless assumption made by applying human logic to the mind of God. We have no idea what His plans were . . . .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

All the talk is centered around a new belief that Adam and Eve had sexual relations prior to the fall.

Hi. Can't we make a seperate thread on adam and eve?

 

[Oblio]

And I do not consider Muslims or Jews "enemies" of the church.
The 3 Abrahamic religions just view the Bible differently

OK, we are all the same, just view the Bible a little differently

They both deny Christ, the Author and finisher of our Faith and the only hope of Salvation. They deny the Gospels, the centerpiece of Holy Scripture. And muslims are deadly enemies of Christians and have been since the 7th c AD. To deny this is to cheapen the countless martyrs and confessors throughout the past 1300 years.

 

[racer]

Hi. Can't we make a seperate thread on adam and eve?

We really do need to. I've let this get way off track . . . . sorry.

I'm going to track down some of my original questions about Mary which were never answered and get back to the OP.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

OK, we are all the same, just view the Bible a little differently

They both deny Christ, the Author and finisher of our Faith and the only hope of Salvation. They deny the Gospels, the centerpiece of Holy Scripture. And muslims are deadly enemies of Christians and have been since the 7th c AD. To deny this is to cheapen the countless martyrs and confessors throughout the past 1300 years.

So we just keep hating and warring. This is exactly what I am up against with the Atheists [most of them ex-Christ-ians] and why they are so much against religion in general.
If that is the way you feel, so be it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4798176-what-kind-of-image-is-christianity-setting-for-others.html

 

[Oblio]

So therefore sex is not a curse but a blessing..

Strawman.
No one said it was a curse.

Death is a blessing, without which we would forever live in corruption caused by the sickness of sin entering the world. So we all die, without sex (for those who reproduce sexually) there would soon be no one left to save It's not a curse, it is a means to keep God's creation from timing out.

 

[racer]

Strawman.
No one said it was a curse.

Death is a blessing, without which we would forever live in corruption caused by the sickness of sin entering the world. So we all die, without sex (for those who reproduce sexually) there would soon be no one left to save It's not a curse, it is a means to keep God's creation from timing out.

Well, then since you all know so much about God's plan, why stop there? If you know this, then surely you must know exactly how He intended for Adam and Eve to procreate and multiply?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. Where does Genesis chapters 1 and 2 say that Adam and Eve never had sexual relations?

Where does it state that they did?

You seem to have gotten this twisted around.

I'm not the one who made a dogmatic statement about this. I'm not the one who said they were virgins in the Garden. I asked for some verification to the dogmatic statement of fact that was made.

None was offered.

2. Since God COMMANDED Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, unless you assume they were too stupid or ignorant or left uninformed to know how to obey that COMMAND, are you assuming that they in fact sinned prior to the Fall?

God making provision for sexual relation is quite different from sexual relations taking place.

Where does Genesis 1 and 2 say that?

So, you are arguing that they fullfilled God's COMMAND to be fruitful and to multiply by doing something which would insure they could not be fruitful and multiply, and thus were obeying God? And by circumventing God's Command, they were thus fulfilling His command? Where does the text say anything of the sort?

But, you stated, as a fact, that they had no relations before the Fall. I'm curious where the text says that.

Genesis 4:1

Interesting, you didn't actually quote to verse.
Here it is, "Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant and give birth to Cain."

Where does that say that Adam and Eve were virgins before the Fall?
Obviously, it doesn't.
Obviously.




There seems to be a very difficult to understand ASSUMPTION in Catholicism that every single act of marital intimacies results in a child so indicated in the Bible; that unless a child is specifically mentioned as having resulted from such - then it's a dogmatic FACT that the couple are virgins.

I think it's pretty much common knowledge that NOT every act of sexual intimacies results in a child named in the name - or even a child at all!!! This this dogmatic assumption just doesn't hold up whatsoever. Being childless is NOT the same thing as being a virgin. I'm sure there are several examples of couples in every Catholic parish who are NOT virgins but who do NOT have any children named in the Bible - or even children at all. This assumption needs a bit of a reality check, IMHO.



Friend, there is ZERO biblical support for the teaching that Adam and Eve were virgins until after they were removed from the Garden. And there is equally ZERO biblical support that Mary was such after Jesus was born.



My perspective.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[racer]

You seem to have gotten this twisted around.

I'm not the one who made a dogmatic statement about this. I'm not the one who said they were virgins in the Garden. I asked for some verification to the dogmatic statement of fact that was made.

None was offered.





Where does Genesis 1 and 2 say that?
So, you are arguing that they fullfilled God's COMMAND to be fruitful and to multiply by doing something which would insure they could not be fruitful and multiply, and thus were obeying God? Where does the text say that?






Interesting you didn't actually quote to verse you offered. Here it is, "Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant and give birth to Cain."

Now, where in the WORLD does that say that Adam and Eve were virgins before the Fall? Obviously, it doesn't.
Not unless you just INSERT into the text, "Adam lay with his wife (which he had never done before)" but that's not there.


There seems to be a very difficult to understand ASSUMPTION in Catholicism that every single act of marital intimacies results in a child so indicated in the Bible; that unless a child is specifically mentioned as having resulted from such - then the couple are virgins. I realize a lot of Catholic theologians are unmarried, but come on - it's pretty much common knowledge (even among us unmarried virgin males) that NOT every act of sexual intimacies results in a child named in the name - or even a child at all!!! Being childless is NOT the same thing as being a virgin. I'm sure there are several examples of couples in every Catholic parish who are NOT virgins but who do NOT have any children named in the Bible - or even children at all. This assumption needs a bit of a reality check, IMHO.



Friend, there is ZERO biblical support for the teaching that Adam and Eve were virgins until after they were removed from the Garden. And there is equally ZERO biblical support that Mary was such after Jesus was born.



My perspective.


Pax!


- Josiah

As usual, your articulation surpasses my own . . . . . . .

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As usual, your articulation surpasses my own . . . . . . .

I edited it and made it better.

 

[racer]

I edited it and made it better.

Makes me feel a tad better . . . . .

 

[Asinner]

You seem to have gotten this twisted around.

Ok.

I'm not the one who made a dogmatic statement about this. I'm not the one who said they were virgins in the Garden. I asked for some verification to the dogmatic statement of fact that was made.

I am reiterating what the Church has always taught. Me, myself, and I make no claim to any dogmatic statements.

None was offered.

None you agreed with you mean.

So, you are arguing that they fullfilled God's COMMAND to be fruitful and to multiply by doing something which would insure they could not be fruitful and multiply, and thus were obeying God? And by circumventing God's Command, they were thus fulfilling His command? Where does the text say anything of the sort?

Let's keep this simple. The "text" states that God made a commandment in the first chapter to "be fruitful and multiply". The ECF's teach that He made provision beforehand knowing that Adam and Eve would fall and death would reign.

Interesting

, you didn't actually quote to verse.

Here it is, "Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant and give birth to Cain."

Where does that say that Adam and Eve were virgins before the Fall?

Adam knew her and she conceived. If a woman is barren, the "text" usually states it. It does not. Nowhere do I read that in the garden, Eve was barren or had difficulty conceiving. Since they were the only two people alive I figure this would be pretty important, dontchathink?

Obviously, it doesn't.

Obviously.

Obviously nowhere do I read that Eve had fertility issues. I don't read about it, because she did not have fertility issues. Actually, it is absurd to even suggest it. I can hear Eve turning toward Adam in desperation after God's command to be fruitful and multiply and saying, "Honey, what's wrong with me? How come I can't get pregnant?"

Would God allow Eve to have fertility issues after commanding them to procreate? INCONCEIVABLE!

There seems to be a very difficult to understand ASSUMPTION in Catholicism that every single act of marital intimacies results in a child so indicated in the Bible; that unless a child is specifically mentioned as having resulted from such - then it's a dogmatic FACT that the couple are virgins.

And it's dogmatic to you that everyone in the bible was having sex! Only Paul specifically mentions his abstainance; therefore, according to your logic, he must have been the only virgin who ever lived. (Poor guy)

I think it's pretty much common knowledge that NOT every act of sexual intimacies results in a child named in the name - or even a child at all!!!

What is common knowledge though is that everyone is having relations! Correct?

Oooops . . . except Paul.

This this dogmatic assumption just doesn't hold up whatsoever. Being childless is NOT the same thing as being a virgin.
I'm sure there are several examples of couples in every Catholic parish who are NOT virgins but who do NOT have any children named in the Bible - or even children at all. This assumption needs a bit of a reality check, IMHO.

Josiah,

Holy Scripture tells me that barrenness is a curse, or at least those who were barren saw it as anything but a blessing. So, exactly how many times did Adam and Eve have relations before she conceived Cain? How many months went by when Eve (who was just commanded by God to procreate ) had to wonder what on earth God meant by "be fruitful and multiply". God gives His command and according to you, a period of time went by that His command remained dormant?

Friend, there is ZERO biblical support for the teaching that Adam and Eve were virgins until after they were removed from the Garden. And there is equally ZERO biblical support that Mary was such after Jesus was born.

There is much support which you choose to ignore because you cannot fathom the idea of abstinence.

Love,
Christina

 

[Oblio]

Would God allow Eve to have fertility issues after commanding them to procreate? INCONCEIVABLE!

:groan:

 

[thereselittleflower]

:groan:

That's probably the best response . . .


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let's keep this simple. The "text" states that God made a commandment in the first chapter to "be fruitful and multiply". The ECF's teach that He made provision beforehand knowing that Adam and Eve would fall and death would reign.

Let's keep it simply.

BEFORE the Fall, God COMMANDED Adam and Eve to be fruitful. There's only one way in which they could be obedient and DO what God had COMMANDED. If they did not, they would be disobeying - and thus sinning.

IF your view is correct and God desired for them to be virgins until after the Fall, then clearly He would not have commanded them to do what He desired for them not to do. Your rationale here would made sense if God made this command AFTER the Fall, but He did not. He made it BEFORE the Fall - in the Garden - where there was no sin.

Here seems to be the bottom line: I see nothing to suggest that the loving mutual sharing of sexual intimacies between spouses is such a horrible sinful thing that defiles the wife and makes her impure. That seems to be the underlying disagreement among us.


The argument that Mary must have been so deprived because Adam and Eve were falls at every point. Eve is not Mary. And there's nothing that remotely suggests that Eve was do deprived either.

Here it is, "Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant and give birth to Cain."

Where does that say that Adam and Eve were virgins before the Fall?

Adam knew her and she conceived. If a woman is barren, the "text" usually states it. It does not. Nowhere do I read that in the garden, Eve was barren or had difficulty conceiving. Since they were the only two people alive I figure this would be pretty important, dontchathink?

You offered this verse as evidence that Adam and Eve were virgins before the Fall. It says no such thing - it doesn't even remotely, wildly hint at such.

I agree: no child was conceived in the Garden, God did not so cause. But (and this DOES seem to be key to our disagreement), you seem to be assuming that if there is so much as a single loving mutual sharing of intimacies, then - of course - a child will result. I'm sure we all know such is just not the case, you're whole arguement seems to pin on the biology that if Eve was not a virgin, she should have had children. I can give you the names of many women whom I'm pretty sure aren't virgins but who have no children - your entire arguement is based on faulty biology.


Again, you're arguing that Mary must have been a virgin forever because Eve was for awhile. But there's no more support for Eve having been a virgin (much less a perpetual one) than there is for Mary. And the verse you offered to support the virginity of Mary provides zero substantiation for such.

There seems to be a very difficult to understand ASSUMPTION in Catholicism that every single act of marital intimacies results in a child so indicated in the Bible; that unless a child is specifically mentioned as having resulted from such - then it's a dogmatic FACT that the couple are virgins.

And it's dogmatic to you that everyone in the bible was having sex! Only Paul specifically mentions his abstainance; therefore, according to your logic, he must have been the only virgin who ever lived. (Poor guy)

You seem to be getting our positions confused.


YOU are the one with the DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I'm not. YOU are the one saying that it's dogmatically certain and of the highest importance that Mary and Joseph never once lovingly shared sexual intimacies within the sacred bonds of Marriage after Jesus was born. YOU are the one with the DOGMA.

I have no position whatsoever in this regard. None. The Bible is respectfully and very understandably silent about this supremely private issue, and so am I. I don't know if how often they did it - AND FRANKLY IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS. YOU, on the other hand, not only claim to know - for certain - but that it's critically important to know. Well, then, it's not unreasonable for others to ask - how do you know? Why is it so important to know how often they did it? YOU, my friend, are the one with the dogma about this. I'm not.


You seem to be getting our positions mixed up.

This this dogmatic assumption just doesn't hold up whatsoever. Being childless is NOT the same thing as being a virgin.
I'm sure there are several examples of couples in every Catholic parish who are NOT virgins but who do NOT have any children named in the Bible - or even children at all. This assumption needs a bit of a reality check, IMHO.

Josiah,

Holy Scripture tells me that barrenness is a curse, or at least those who were barren saw it as anything but a blessing. So, exactly how many times did Adam and Eve have relations before she conceived Cain? How many months went by when Eve (who was just commanded by God to procreate ) had to wonder what on earth God meant by "be fruitful and multiply". God gives His command and according to you, a period of time went by that His command remained dormant?

I realize this is to be a very difficult thing here, but I DON'T KNOW. Sometimes, a person can ask a question, it doesn't mean the self-same as a dogmatic answer to the question of the self-same. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden - the Bible doesn't say. I don't know how often Adam and Eve shared such intimacies - or even if they did. It doesn't say. I'm not the one with the dogma here, my friend. I'm not the one with a position to defend here.


But you're whole argument rests on the point that if a couple shares such intimacies - even once - they MUST have a child so indicated in the Bible, otherwise it's dogmatically certain that they were virgins. I think your biological assumption there is flawed and unreasonable. I accept that Adam and Eve had no other children prior to Cain - but that does NOT categorically and dogmatically prove that they never once - ever, not once - shared loving intimacies with each other. IMHO, you've made a completely unreasonable and unsubstantiated leap.


Your support for this Dogma that divides us is that Mary MUST have been a virgin all her life because no one can PROVE that the named brothers of Jesus and unnamed sisters of Jesus weren't via Mary. But such has nothing to do with the issue of the dogma - the dogma is not "Mary had No Other Children" it's "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" - a whole other, completely different issue. And you argue she MUST have been a perpetual virgin because Eve was not a perpetual virgin (??) but was when she was in the Garden, but there's ZERO support for that. Zero. In fact, it seems pretty problemmatic. I think that's obvious.



My perspective.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Asinner]

Here seems to be the bottom line: I see nothing to suggest that the loving mutual sharing of sexual intimacies between spouses is such a horrible sinful thing that defiles the wife and makes her impure. That seems to be the underlying disagreement among us.

Since I do not believe this either, I suppose there is no underlying disagreement?

The argument that Mary must have been so deprived because Adam and Eve were falls at every point. Eve is not Mary. And there's nothing that remotely suggests that Eve was do deprived either.

Your words speak volumes.

But you're whole argument rests on the point that if a couple shares such intimacies - even once - they MUST have a child so indicated in the Bible, otherwise it's dogmatically certain that they were virgins.

Josiah, I have 5 children. I am very much aware that not every shared intimacy results in a child. Holy Scripture states that Adam knew Eve after the fall and she conceived. Your doctrine that they were having relations, yet not conceiving is a far greater theological leap than the one the Church teaches. Your theory makes God's command stagnant. They were not conceiving in the Garden and yet, He commanded them to?

Your support for this Dogma that divides us is that Mary MUST have been a virgin all her life because no one can PROVE that the named brothers of Jesus and unnamed sisters of Jesus weren't via Mary. But such has nothing to do with the issue of the dogma - the dogma is not "Mary had No Other Children" it's "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" - a whole other, completely different issue. And you argue she MUST have been a perpetual virgin because Eve was not a perpetual virgin (??) but was when she was in the Garden, but there's ZERO support for that. Zero. In fact, it seems pretty problemmatic. I think that's obvious.

Mary was a vowed Virgin. This is manifested in her response to Gabriel. The POJ speaks on her Chastity (her temple vow) and the age of Joseph when he took Mary in. It also speaks on the fact that Jospeph had other children. Scriptural support is found in Christ giving his mother to John at the cross. Mary is likened to Eve in many aspects.

Love,
Christina

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, I have 5 children. I am very much aware that not every shared intimacy results in a child. Holy Scripture states that Adam knew Eve after the fall and she conceived. Your doctrine that they were having relations, yet not conceiving is a far greater theological leap than the one the Church teaches. Your theory makes God's command stagnant. They were not conceiving in the Garden and yet, He commanded them to?

Some thoughts...


1. Since you KNOW that it's possible to have loving, mutual sharing of intimacies without such resulting in a child named in the Bible (or even one at all), then you're whole arguement about how we can't PROVE that Jesus' brothers and sisters were via Mary and that Eve conceived no children prior to the Fall is suddenly moot. It provides no substantiation for the virginity of either Mary or Eve. I think you just surrendered your arguement and support for your dogma of the VIRGINITY of Eve before the Fall and the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary.


2. Again, you continue to confuse our positions. YOU are the one with the dogma about how often Mary and Joseph 'did it' after Jesus was born. I have no opinion - much less a Dogma on this issue. YOU are the one dogmatically insisting that Mary never once - not once - ever - lovingly shared intimacies with her husband. YOU are the one insisting that you KNOW about this, with the highest level of certainty, and that this issue of how often they did (or didn't) do it is of the highest importance. It's YOUR position, my sister in Christ. I don't have a position. Personally or dogmatically. I don't know. I don't care. IT'S NON OF MY BUSINESS! The Bible is respectfully and very understandably silent about his supremely private issue of their highly personal lives. It says nothing about it. I do the same. I have no position to defend here, my sister. YOU are the one with the dogma. YOU are the one saying you KNOW. YOU are the one saying it's of the highest importance that we know how often they did it. You continue to get our positions mixed up.


3. I agree with you that there were no children conceived in the Garden. What in the world that has to do with any Marian dogmas is a real puzzle to me, but I agree with it. And we both agree that such does NOT mean that therefore Eve was a virgin in the Garden. We're now agreeing on that. So, I'm really not sure what you're point is anymore.

Your support for this Dogma that divides us is that Mary MUST have been a virgin all her life because no one can PROVE that the named brothers of Jesus and unnamed sisters of Jesus weren't via Mary. But such has nothing to do with the issue of the dogma - the dogma is not "Mary had No Other Children" it's "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" - a whole other, completely different issue. And you argue she MUST have been a perpetual virgin because Eve was not a perpetual virgin (??) but was when she was in the Garden, but there's ZERO support for that. Zero. In fact, it seems pretty problemmatic. I think that's obvious.

Mary was a vowed Virgin. This is manifested in her response to Gabriel. The POJ speaks on her Chastity (her temple vow) and the age of Joseph when he took Mary in. It also speaks on the fact that Jospeph had other children. Scriptural support is found in Christ giving his mother to John at the cross. Mary is likened to Eve in many aspects.

I don't follow how your response has anything whatsoever to do with the quote you made from my post...


The Protoevangelium of James says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the Perpetual Viriginty of Mary or the temporary virginity of Eve. Nothing.

I quoted the entire book - more than once - here at CF. The entire book. Verbatim. There's NOTHING in it - nothing - that says Mary was a virgin until her death (or nondeath, however your opinion may be there). There's nothing in the Canonical books, nothing in the noncanonical rejected books, nothing from the earliest church fathers on this issue at all.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[music4two]

Can someone tell me in what way believing Mary is a perpetual virgin or that Jesus has no real brothers helps me to become like Christ?