Philothei
Love never fails
there are many sources in this thread as well as the others that point to the differene of the EO understanding
virginity is purety of the heart it is disposition and "thesis" (position) of the heart.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thekla, since it was stressed that "virgin" form the EO perspective is spiritual and not physical, that it is defined DIFFERENTLY than in the west, I think my quest to understand what is meant by this spiritual but not physical virginity was in order and appropriate. I think the diversion, evasions, and personal attacks on me were not.
This is, without oubt, the best post I have read to date on GT. The identification of communication problems is clear, and the course of action is easily identified. If CJ does not understand this, thre is truly no point in moving forward with dialogue WRT our doctrine, its philosophical/biblical/theological underpinings, or for that matter, the subject of sexual relations. Perhaps a separate thread re. the EO understanding of biblical, pure, and healthy sex would be in order- although I suspect his contribution would involve further inquiries into the bedroom of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. IOW, fruitless and pointless.There was a thread specifically on the EO teaching of ever-virginity.
Two EO authors were quoted extensively and the original essays linked.
Given the exclusively physical and repeated sexual references in the bulk of the posts preceding this thread, it became abundantly clear that the spiritual content of the term had either been 'obliterated through repetition or was never understood.
In the (previous) dogma thread, and in other threads, there was an attempt to explain the fuller understanding (the full definition and soteriological, Incarnational and Christological origin of the "need to doctrinally state the evr-virginity of the Theotokos). We never got there - it was just back to discussions about sex. Your not infrequent response to these attempts of ours was along the lines of "what does this have to do with the dogma of 'no sex ever'". Either the spiritual aspects were too unfamiliar, foreign or apparently ignored - so we could get 'round (and then repeat) a discussion about sex, other people's sex lives, etc., It seemed needed by EO posters to try and return the conversation to the full EO meaning of virgin. Frankly, I was left with the notion that the western Christian definition of virgin was militantly and exclusively a matter of coitus.
My discussions with my parents re: the sexual character of the posts in these threads was met with distress. It was my father's observation that the secular sense of morality (as personalised as opposed to God centered) seemed to have invaded yet another 'corner' of Christianity, and that this was lamentable indeed. (We discussed postings in the Mariology forum for the umpteenth time on Friday). I guess my "hang-ups" come from my parents as well.
I would think that if the EO understanding of ever-virginity had been grasped 8 months ago, or 6 months ago, or even more recently, we wouldn't have been talking about sex so much here.
There was a thread specifically on the EO teaching of ever-virginity.
Two EO authors were quoted extensively and the original essays linked.
Given the exclusively physical and repeated sexual references in the bulk of the posts preceding this thread, it became abundantly clear that the spiritual content of the term had either been 'obliterated through repetition or was never understood.
In the (previous) dogma thread, and in other threads, there was an attempt to explain the fuller understanding (the full definition and soteriological, Incarnational and Christological origin of the "need to doctrinally state the evr-virginity of the Theotokos). We never got there - it was just back to discussions about sex. Your not infrequent response to these attempts of ours was along the lines of "what does this have to do with the dogma of 'no sex ever'". Either the spiritual aspects were too unfamiliar, foreign or apparently ignored - so we could get 'round (and then repeat) a discussion about sex, other people's sex lives, etc., It seemed needed by EO posters to try and return the conversation to the full EO meaning of virgin. Frankly, I was left with the notion that the western Christian definition of virgin was militantly and exclusively a matter of coitus.
My discussions with my parents re: the sexual character of the posts in these threads was met with distress. It was my father's observation that the secular sense of morality (as personalised as opposed to God centered) seemed to have invaded yet another 'corner' of Christianity, and that this was lamentable indeed. (We discussed postings in the Mariology forum for the umpteenth time on Friday). I guess my "hang-ups" come from my parents as well.
I would think that if the EO understanding of ever-virginity had been grasped 8 months ago, or 6 months ago, or even more recently, we wouldn't have been talking about sex so much here.
Because she is willing & able? Because it is part of living, being a mother & wife. Because Joseph deserved to have James & the others. Etc., etc., etc.quote=Philothei; he question of Ever virginity is again that if Theotokos was the one to be so involved in the incarnation and give birth to the God-man who was by birth God and man in one hypostases, why would God let anyone else to be born out of her?
They wouldn't, having had different fathers.Why would God allow in the world to exist the dna of Christ?
Very reasonable.The fact that she had no children does not prove her virginity that is true.
It isn't defiling. They were married.On the other hand though why would she take any chances if she knew that God's will was to be undefiled "until" the end of the ages?
I agree. The point of her virginity fulfilled the prophecy. After that, marital relations would be normal.Her "physical" virginity was a mere "tool" to approach the Lord in humility, purity and prayer and complete devotion to her calling It is not by any means a pointer to a life without marital relations.
Perhaps you didn't grasp something yourselves.I would think that if the EO understanding of ever-virginity had been grasped 8 months ago, or 6 months ago, or even more recently, we wouldn't have been talking about sex so much here.
Theotokos was "by choice" a virgin for life... so to say that relations were "normal" for her is not right and it has no bearing on "any marriage" She chose that and Joseph... Their convenant was broken as she had a child "outside" of that "marital chamber" did she not? So...no that was not an ordinary marriage situation. Basically she was "married" in the eyes of the people but 'legally" not married neither was she married in the eyes of God thus she had no 'responisibility' to 'prove' it by having a marital relation with Joseph.Because she is willing & able? Because it is part of living, being a mother & wife. Because Joseph deserved to have James & the others. Etc., etc., etc.
They wouldn't, having had different fathers.
Very reasonable.
It isn't defiling. They were married.
I agree. The point of her virginity fulfilled the prophecy. After that, marital relations would be normal.
Perhaps you didn't grasp something yourselves.
If the meaning & importance of the term "virginity" isn't the physical facts, why insist on it being physical fact?
Ignorance is constantly underestimated.You think 2,000 years we would not have "grasped" it and the 200 years trad...of people's doubts have anything valid to bring forth?
Perhaps you didn't grasp something yourselves.
If the meaning & importance of the term "virginity" isn't the physical facts, why insist on it being physical fact?
Your boy Johnny Calvin believed in her forever Virginity.Ignorance is constantly underestimated.
Can anyone answer the question?
His words say he believed Mary had no additionalo kids and that scripture could be translated to kinfolk...then in that same commentary he says this...Your boy Johnny Calvin believed in her forever Virginity.
His words say he believed Mary had no additionalo kids and that scripture could be translated to kinfolk...then in that same commentary he says this...
he is called First-born, but for no other reason than that we may know that he was born of a pure virgin, and who never had had a child. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us.
Precisely, anyone saying otherwise is simply parsing his words to meet their ends.Then it is fair to say he had no position either way ??????
Precisely, anyone saying otherwise is simply parsing his words to meet their ends.
I understand and am glad your not in the camp of promoting him one way or the other because those who are simply are being disengenuos.Well, from my POV, better that he have no opinion than to deny the Dogma
You have a point there.I think it's a fair and scholarly conclusion, that the Bible alone does not directly support either view.
So, anyone claiming to use the Bible alone should not come to any other conclusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?