Something About Mary (2)

[SolomonVII]

That He was born fully human fully divine has never been at issue.

Au contraire, this was precisely the issue that was hotly debated at the time of the PoJ.

I think it would result in more fruitful discussion (and understanding between those in discussion) to recall this (ie texts vs. speculation re: texts).

Josiah was very insistent too, that none of the text said anything about the perpetual virginity or sex life of Mary.
But he is no longer around.

Ie, to be accurate (as in reading here, I see a number of misconceptions/ erroneous claims re: what is believed/understood).

Re: the matter of Mary, I hope you can understand how others see this (as again, Scripture does not state Mary had more children, etc., and to conclude this Scripture must be read against itself instead of in harmony with itself), which includes the understanding that each person is a unique person with a unique purpose toward God and created by Him for this purpose.

There is not tradition that states as a matter of liturgy/doctrine/dogma that Mary did have children/was not a perpetual virgin.
To keep Christian truth about Mary real, therefore, what is important is to show the tradtions/doctrine/dogma/liturgy that goes beyond what can be truthfully and historically stated about her.

Ie, Mary is Mary, and no other person.

That is true. It is also a truism, since it applies to every person.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Thekla

That He was born fully human fully divine has never been at issue.
​

Solomon VII: Au contraire, this was precisely the issue that was hotly debated at the time of the PoJ.

SU: Of course! And voila, it's John that hammers away at the contrast. The Word became flesh. Came by water and blood. To deny it was anti-Christ, and that spirit was prevalent in his time.

Another century and the issue became adoptionism/Arius (became Christ at His baptism) because of the ever-virgin teaching. Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus (no true human flesh or born through Mary, but not of her) flourished in Rome and Egypt.

Another few hundred years and the Trullo councils nails the issue down, Christ was born without afterflux (blood, water, cord, placenta) in contradiction to scripture (John primarily).

 

[SolomonVII]

Originally Posted by Thekla

That He was born fully human fully divine has never been at issue.
​

Solomon VII: Au contraire, this was precisely the issue that was hotly debated at the time of the PoJ.

SU: Of course! And voila, it's John that hammers away at the contrast. The Word became flesh. Came by water and blood. To deny it was anti-Christ, and that spirit was prevalent in his time.

Another century and the issue became adoptionism/Arius (became Christ at His baptism) because of the ever-virgin teaching. Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus (no true human flesh or born through Mary, but not of her) flourished in Rome and Egypt.

Another few hundred years and the Trullo councils nails the issue down, Christ was born without afterflux (blood, water, cord, placenta) in contradiction to scripture (John primarily).

For those who have not completely rejected the role that scholars might play in understanding of early Christianity and the context of Scripture, the role that John in particular plays in opposing the forces of the emerging Gnostic influence simply cannot be stressed too much.

Jesus in Scripture prophecies to the great age that John would attain (if I am recalling correctly), and indeed the writings of the apostolic tradition ascribed to John are of a later vintage than the other three Gospels, or than the even earlier writings of Paul.

A case in point about the way that John interacted with gnostic use of earlier gospels would centre on the issue of reincarnation. Whereas the other gospels were already being used according to the ancient wisdom of the gnostics to be show that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah, John specifically states that this was not the case.

Our colleagues and their insistence on the ancient nature of their liturgies are really not good arguments, for what is needed is not just proof of an early date, but evidence that the belief is indeed apostolic. To the Anti-christ teaching of the Gnostics. John stresses the full humanity of Christ through dispelling incorrect beliefs that were already arising from gnostic interpretation of earlier scripture.
Blood and water is a good description of who Jesus was, how he was born, how he lived, and how he died. John uses these words not randomly, not cryptically where it is maybe this or maybe that, but as direct descriptions of who Jesus was in direct contradistinction to who the Gnostics were saying he was.

And hence, Trullo is arrived at, where it is the Gnostic understanding that is used by the orthodox church to push back against other abuses that arise out of the warping of the role that Mary came to play in the early church.

Trullo

Canon 79

As we confess the divine birth of the Virgin to be without any childbed, since it came to pass without seed, and as we preach this to the entire flock, so we subject to correction those who through ignorance do anything which is inconsistent therewith. Wherefore since some on the day after the holy Nativity of Christ our God are seen cooking σεμίδαλῖν, and distributing it to each other, on pretext of doing honour to the puerperia of the spotless Virgin Maternity, we decree that henceforth nothing of the kind be done by the faithful. For this is not honouring the Virgin (who above thought and speech bare in the flesh the incomprehensible Word) when we define and describe, from ordinary things and from such as occur with ourselves, her ineffable parturition. If therefore anyone henceforth be discovered doing any such thing, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.

The original Christian understanding of immaculate and virginity being about Scripture and therefore about metaphorical and allegorical descriptions of the birth of Christ the Word become displaced by hymens and the immaculateness of the actual birthing process, as if these are the kind of things that define sin.

It is an understanding that can historically be seen to be a corrupt one based in the interaction of the apostolic message with messages that come from even more ancient sources. In terms of theology, it is essentially meaningless to think that there is a spiritual message in an intact hymen, and to the extent that this is what became of the theology of Mary, the total ridiculousness of the debate about whether or not to worship childbirth comes to the fore.

 

[sculleywr]

Originally Posted by Thekla

That He was born fully human fully divine has never been at issue.
​

Solomon VII: Au contraire, this was precisely the issue that was hotly debated at the time of the PoJ.

SU: Of course! And voila, it's John that hammers away at the contrast. The Word became flesh. Came by water and blood. To deny it was anti-Christ, and that spirit was prevalent in his time.

Another century and the issue became adoptionism/Arius (became Christ at His baptism) because of the ever-virgin teaching. Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus (no true human flesh or born through Mary, but not of her) flourished in Rome and Egypt.

Another few hundred years and the Trullo councils nails the issue down, Christ was born without afterflux (blood, water, cord, placenta) in contradiction to scripture (John primarily).

Did not the presence of blood and water at the Crucifixion successfully nail any ideas of a non-physical Christ? Because a ghost can not bleed, and a spirit cannot feel pain in a physical manner. The entire Crucifixion itself destroys any idea of a non-physical Christ.

Also, John gives NO birth narrative. All we see in his Scripture is the Word became flesh. The fact that John makes absolutely NO reference to the birth in his gospel gives no contextual clues to whether or not there was an afterbirth.

Assuming one epistle is referring to a birth which his gospel, likely written in the same time frame, does not record. That's illogical.

 

[Standing Up]

Did not the presence of blood and water at the Crucifixion successfully nail any ideas of a non-physical Christ? -snip-

No, because as Thekla pointed out, there was the adoptionism theory to answer that. Jesus became Christ at baptism; He wasn't God-with-us. He died "God", but wasn't born that way.

Again, keep in mind that the arguments against Emmanuel evolved over time. First it was a phantom, then it was okay he had flesh, but not like ours, then it was not a normal birth, then it was adoptionism and Arianism.

The ever-virgin myth got in the way early on to the truth----water and blood at birth and water and blood at death. If one then the other. Besides that is what scripture and tradition trhough Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others said.

 

[SolomonVII]

What did John mean by he came by water and blood…

Pertinent argument

 

[sculleywr]

No, because as Thekla pointed out, there was the adoptionism theory to answer that. Jesus became Christ at baptism; He wasn't God-with-us. He died "God", but wasn't born that way.

Again, keep in mind that the arguments against Emmanuel evolved over time. First it was a phantom, then it was okay he had flesh, but not like ours, then it was not a normal birth, then it was adoptionism and Arianism.

The ever-virgin myth got in the way early on to the truth----water and blood at birth and water and blood at death. If one then the other. Besides that is what scripture and tradition trhough Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others said.

The problem is, Arianism was not around at the time of John's writing. He did not address the birth. He was depicting Jesus as God. The one who focused on the birth narrative the most is Luke. There is no birth narrative in John. Luke portrayed him as the "Ideal Man", Who is still God. John focused on the divinity and messiah-ship.

Adoptionism didn't come around until MUCH later. There are other Traditions which sit in balance to the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. Such as the Creed itself. Athanasius, who accepted the ever-virginity, was the basis of said Creed, along with the creed of Irenaeus, and Scripture in the center of both.

As John did not say he was born of water and blood, and as he was speaking of salvation in the epistle, which came by way of the Cross, it is not assumed by the context. He ignored the birth almost entirely in his gospel. Why would he, in some cryptic allusion, refer to it in an epistle without specifying?

 

[Standing Up]

The problem is, Arianism was not around at the time of John's writing.-snip-

I said as much. The arguments against Emmanuel evolved over time. First it was phantom, then it was yes-flesh-but-not-human-birth, then devolved into Arius.

Keep in mind these were bishops in the church (Marcion, Valentinus, Samosoto, Arius, etc.). The men may have left, like Tertullian, but their thoughts remained.

John tells us Christ Jesus had water and blood at death and water and blood at birth. Simple. God-with-us.

 

[Standing Up]

What did John mean by he came by water and blood…

Pertinent argument

Cool. Point 5. Always nice to find you're not alone in the desert with a horse with no name.

A camp of two or so has expanded.

 

[sculleywr]

I said as much. The arguments against Emmanuel evolved over time. First it was phantom, then it was yes-flesh-but-not-human-birth, then devolved into Arius.

Keep in mind these were bishops in the church (Marcion, Valentinus, Samosoto, Arius, etc.). The men may have left, like Tertullian, but their thoughts remained.

John tells us Christ Jesus had water and blood at death and water and blood at birth. Simple. God-with-us.

I don't see birth mentioned by John, so saying he says it was at birth is an illogical approach to the text.

Finally, it doesn't follow that the PoJ was saying the birth was non-physical. IT is your interpretation which says that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Cool. Point 5. Always nice to find you're not alone in the desert with a horse with no name.

A camp of two or so has expanded.

I like camping

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for KJV

"camp"
occurs 136 times in 124 verses in the KJV

Last time used in Bible:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Rev 20:9
and they did go up over the breadth of the land, and did surround the camp of the saints, and the beloved city, and there came down fire from God out of the heaven, and devoured them;

The Camp--The Court--The Tabernacle--The Brazen Altar--The Laver-- The Table--The Lampstand--The Golden Altar--The Mercy Seat and Ark--The Gate--The First Veil--The Second Veil--The Significance of These and Their Antitypes.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I said as much. The arguments against Emmanuel evolved over time. First it was phantom, then it was yes-flesh-but-not-human-birth, then devolved into Arius.

Keep in mind these were bishops in the church (Marcion, Valentinus, Samosoto, Arius, etc.). The men may have left, like Tertullian, but their thoughts remained.

John tells us Christ Jesus had water and blood at death and water and blood at birth. Simple. God-with-us.

Sure, they were bishops, but they were heretical bishops. And as long as the thoughts weren't codified, it's not a defined teaching of the Church.

 

[Standing Up]

Sure, they were bishops, but they were heretical bishops. And as long as the thoughts weren't codified, it's not a defined teaching of the Church.

Good. There for a moment I thought you subscribed to their idea of ever-virgin. Welcome to the camp.

 

[sculleywr]

Good. There for a moment I thought you subscribed to their idea of ever-virgin. Welcome to the camp.

You're that bad at guessing what other people believe? He's Roman Catholic. The Ever-Virginity of Mary is part of their official catechesis.

 

[SolomonVII]

Cool. Point 5. Always nice to find you're not alone in the desert with a horse with no name.

A camp of two or so has expanded.

You are one of the few people capable of looking at the text for what it says, rather than according to what any camp, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, tells us that it means.

Using other passages in John that pertain directly to birth, it becomes fairly obvious from the context that "came by water" is directly related to birth.

n John 3 Jesus explains to Nicodemus about a spiritual birth and gives an explanation for being born of water.

John 3:5-8 (v. 5) “ ... unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus, who is a Pharisee. He is speaking in relation to the Pharisee’s teaching- to be born of water meant to be born physically. This is proven by Nicodemus’ remark to Jesus asking if someone can go back into the womb while he is old. Nicodemus thought to be born again meant a physical birth (v.4). In verse 5, Jesus proceeds to say, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee, believed like the other Jews that because he was born a Jew, he would automatically enter into the kingdom of God. However, Jesus explains that this is not enough. In verse 6, Jesus Himself interprets the water as flesh (a physical birth). “that which is flesh is flesh” Jesus says of being born of water is to be born of the flesh and then explains the difference to Nicodemus of already having a physical birth that comes first, and the need of a second birth ‘from the Spirit above ‘to enter the kingdom. He is contrasted the natural (flesh) to the spiritual.​

 

[Standing Up]

You're that bad at guessing what other people believe? He's Roman Catholic. The Ever-Virginity of Mary is part of their official catechesis.

Do we have a tongue-in-cheek smiley? not quite.

 

[Standing Up]

You are one of the few people capable of looking at the text for what it says, rather than according to what any camp, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, tells us that it means.

Using other passages in John that pertain directly to birth, it becomes fairly obvious from the context that "came by water" is directly related to birth.

n John 3 Jesus explains to Nicodemus about a spiritual birth and gives an explanation for being born of water.

John 3:5-8 (v. 5) “ ... unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus, who is a Pharisee. He is speaking in relation to the Pharisee’s teaching- to be born of water meant to be born physically. This is proven by Nicodemus’ remark to Jesus asking if someone can go back into the womb while he is old. Nicodemus thought to be born again meant a physical birth (v.4). In verse 5, Jesus proceeds to say, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee, believed like the other Jews that because he was born a Jew, he would automatically enter into the kingdom of God. However, Jesus explains that this is not enough. In verse 6, Jesus Himself interprets the water as flesh (a physical birth). “that which is flesh is flesh” Jesus says of being born of water is to be born of the flesh and then explains the difference to Nicodemus of already having a physical birth that comes first, and the need of a second birth ‘from the Spirit above ‘to enter the kingdom. He is contrasted the natural (flesh) to the spiritual.
​

Interesting, because that would also decimate the adoptionist theory. IOW, since "came by water" does refer to a normal human birth per your cite, and yet with Christ there's the further inclusion of "water and blood", while for us it is the "water and Spirit", it is clear that Emmanuel (God-with-us) was God-with-us at birth. There was no additional being born again (adoption) at His baptism, like with us.

Make sense?

 

[sculleywr]

Interesting, because that would also decimate the adoptionist theory. IOW, since "came by water" does refer to a normal human birth per your cite, and yet with Christ there's the further inclusion of "water and blood", while for us it is the "water and Spirit", it is clear that Emmanuel (God-with-us) was God-with-us at birth. There was no additional being born again (adoption) at His baptism, like with us.

Make sense?

While that is an understandable explanation, it is the same explanation the Orthodox have of that text, along with a sacramental reference to Baptism (immersion into water) and Chrismation (the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit).


Again, you're off topic. Orthodoxy both decries adoptionism and other such forms of heresy. But we can say His MINISTRY as Christ began at the Baptism, for that is when he began gathering disciples.

We would also say that the Scripture does not SPECIFICALLY say that the Theotokos did not remain a virgin. We know the birth was a natural birth. If it were not, the presence of contractions and a midwife would be unnecessary to the point, and would, in fact, confuse the point. Indeed, all that the author would need is Salome.

We know this:

It is not in the nature of a virgin to be pregnant.
Therefore, it is not in the nature of a virgin to give birth, something which can only happen to a pregnant person.

Therefore, the PoJ is only showing how a pregnant person can also be a virgin. It does not explain that a miracle is done in the healing of her virginity after the birth occurred, but as a child came out through the vaginal tract, a miraculous healing would be necessarily assumed in the light of the physicality with which the author describes the pregnancy and the beginning of labor pains.

 

[Standing Up]

While that is an understandable explanation, it is the same explanation the Orthodox have of that text, along with a sacramental reference to Baptism (immersion into water) and Chrismation (the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit).


Again, you're off topic. Orthodoxy both decries adoptionism and other such forms of heresy. But we can say His MINISTRY as Christ began at the Baptism, for that is when he began gathering disciples.

We would also say that the Scripture does not SPECIFICALLY say that the Theotokos did not remain a virgin. We know the birth was a natural birth. If it were not, the presence of contractions and a midwife would be unnecessary to the point, and would, in fact, confuse the point. Indeed, all that the author would need is Salome.

We know this:

It is not in the nature of a virgin to be pregnant.
Therefore, it is not in the nature of a virgin to give birth, something which can only happen to a pregnant person.

Therefore, the PoJ is only showing how a pregnant person can also be a virgin. It does not explain that a miracle is done in the healing of her virginity after the birth occurred, but as a child came out through the vaginal tract, a miraculous healing would be necessarily assumed in the light of the physicality with which the author describes the pregnancy and the beginning of labor pains.

I doubt they thought there was a miraculous healing. That'd prove virginity had ended. What they thought was either Jesus was born from Mary's side (Ambrose evidently, John of Damascus picks this up), or normally (by water and blood).

But hey, if you got the spear piercing His side at death with water and blood, why not His birth out Mary's side and leave her intact, out the east gate (not the south)? Irenaeus sorta gets this idea going with his comparison of Eve from Adam and Jesus from Mary.

 

[sculleywr]

I doubt they thought there was a miraculous healing. That'd prove virginity had ended. What they thought was either Jesus was born from Mary's side (Ambrose evidently, John of Damascus picks this up), or normally (by water and blood).

But hey, if you got the spear piercing His side at death with water and blood, why not His birth out Mary's side and leave her intact, out the east gate (not the south)? Irenaeus sorta gets this idea going with his comparison of Eve from Adam and Jesus from Mary.

Because this makes no sense given the contractions. Coming out the side would only be possible by Cesarean section, a procedure which had not been developed at the time. Besides that, both would require miraculous healing, or else Mary had the strongest physical endurance known to womankind. Have you ever seen a woman after her stomach has been opened in C-Section? She isn't doing anything besides walking around. The PoJ doesn't mention a side, but it does mention contractions, and the presence of a midwife seals the deal for a "normal" birth (as normal as a teenage virgin giving birth gets).