Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Rick Otto]

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.

"Legaly"?
Your "truth" is trying to hide behind ambiguity (again).
It's a problem evident in your other doctrines that confuse the literal with symbology as well.
The only strength behind your assertions is unreliable.

But I admire your tenacity.
Barnacles got nothin' on you!

 

[katholikos]

Since her first-born was fathered by God, it would be aldultery to have a second-born by another father.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=CaliforniaJosiah;

But we have here more diversion. My question was this and was directed to Orthodox only: Why is it good and right to insist (even as a matter of highest importance in all of Christianity): "The Ever-Virginity of Mary" (and "virgin" here includes sexual absentence), "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" (and "virgin" here includes sexual abstinence) and "The Virgin Mary had no sex" but to post "Mary had no sex ever" is rude, offensive, immature, sex-crazed, hormone-driven, "post" Fruedian, pathological, psychotic and a rule violation here at CF? THAT was the issue I've been trying to explore for some months. And it was directed primary to Orthodox. Rather than anwering it - I got months of "virginity has nothing to do with sex - wait a minute, actually it does" and a long chain of remarks about my person: ridicules, comments about my being immature and over-sexed, pathological, Freudian, psychotic, etc. And Reported to staff for my statement that Mary had no sex is a rule violation.

Defensive behavior that hysterical is expressing the hurt and anger repressed by the denial necessary to accept the constellation of variables that comprise the religious authoritarian (nicolaitane) agenda.
"Useful idiots" to borrow a term from politics, are people whose need to belong exceeds their capacity to discern the predation upon themselves they enable. It's like the beaten wife syndrome.
When it comes to religion, we are often our own worst enemies.
When it comes to spirituality, we always are.

I don't expect any Orthodox to address the issue. Not after all these months of what obviously seems to be their extreme discomfort with their teaching. As I posted, it seems this issue cannot be discussed with them. Thus, I gave up. Must be some cultural thing about women or marital sex. And CF probably isn't the appropriate forum for such a cultural exploration anyway. I just concluded this: It seems Orthodox (well, some) have a huge discomfort with something they hold as dogma. I think I have no choice but to leave it there or else simply continue to be attacked.

I plan to post a critique by a loyal RC who wants to see reform. He points out how the demi-deification of Mary reinforces the elitist patristic, and allegedly celebate priesthood's monopolization of consecrating power.

 

[Rick Otto]

Since her first-born was fathered by God, it would be aldultery to have a second-born by another father.

Would you mind carving that in stone for me, pal?

I'm trying to think of how we can give it some weight.

 

[katholikos]

I plan to post a critique by a loyal RC who wants to see reform. He points out how the demi-deification of Mary reinforces the elitist patristic, and allegedly celebate priesthood's monopolization of consecrating power.

Then he is not a loyal "RC".
And if he really is a Catholic and not just some agent provocateur, then he is probably a heretic by Catholic definition

 

[katholikos]

Since her first-born was fathered by God, it would be aldultery to have a second-born by another father.

Would you mind carving that in stone for me, pal?
I'm trying to think of how we can give it some weight.

Its common sense. By giving birth to Christ, her union with God was consummated, whereas she had not yet consummated her betrothal to Joseph. Therfore, to have a child by Joseph later on would be a crime punishable by stoning.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

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?
​

The discussion was about a particular person for whom virginity was both physical and 'spiritual'.

Excuse me. I'll correct the question:
If in the discussion about the particular person of Mary, the meaning & importance of the term "virginity" isn't about the physical facts of the particular person of Mary, why insist on it being a physical fact of her person?


Better?

 

[simonthezealot]

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.

Deceptive or not being a loving wife neither seem plausible, to me.
My guess is she was a compliant loving and obedient wife..Scripture says nothing less or more.

 

[Thekla]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

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?
​

Excuse me. I'll correct the question:
If in the discussion about the particular person of Mary, the meaning & importance of the term "virginity" isn't about the physical facts of the particular person of Mary, why insist on it being a physical fact of her person?


Better?

Why not give the complete information ?

The reality of this particular person, her personhood, and her assent to her particular God-given role is manifested in her spiritual and physical virginity.

Why is that a problem ?

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

I think you're just excusing yourself from the fact that you are unable to address his clearly presented points with any intellectual honesty as obviated by the ambiguities relied upon to support this tradition.

 

[Rick Otto]

Why not give the complete information ?

The reality of this particular person, her personhood, and her assent to her particular God-given role is manifested in her spiritual and physical virginity.

Why is that a problem ?

It's not a problem in the least. I I have & gave that information. Her physical virginity fulfilled it's mission upon the birth of Jesus. Her spiritual virginity is still intact. No problem.
The problem is insisting on literalizing that virginity & vainly imagining it to be something beyond it's God-given role.

 

[Thekla]

It's not a problem in the least. I I have & gave that information. Her physical virginity fulfilled it's mission upon the birth of Jesus. Her spiritual virginity is still intact. No problem.
The problem is insisting on literalizing that virginity & vainly imagining it to be something beyond it's God-given role.

How do you know this -- please provide conclusive Biblical, historical, linguistic, and theological evidence to support your position.

 

[katholikos]

I repeat:
Its common sense. By giving birth to Christ, her union with God was consummated, whereas she had not yet consummated her betrothal to Joseph. Therfore, to have a child by Joseph later on would be a crime punishable by stoning.

 

[Rick Otto]

I repeat:
Its common sense. By giving birth to Christ, her union with God was consummated, whereas she had not yet consummated her betrothal to Joseph. Therfore, to have a child by Joseph later on would be a crime punishable by stoning.

Joseph was just an accessory after the fact. She'd already "earned" her stoning with The Holy Spirit.

 

[Thekla]

Perhaps in Jewish teachings found in the OT you can find and cite information on the following:

1. Under what conditions a child is 'acceptably' (to God) conceived
2. The "meaning" of marriage which produces a child
3. Under which conditions a woman may conceive and bear children from multiple (currently living) sources
4. The purpose of childbearing for the people of Israel (in its salvific content)

 

[Rick Otto]

How do you know this -- please provide conclusive Biblical, historical, linguistic, and theological evidence to support your position.

That her giving virgin birth to Christ was the fulfillment of the "seed of the virgin" prophesy by God in Genesis?

 

[Thekla]

That her giving virgin birth to Christ was the fulfillment of the "seed of the virgin" prophesy by God in Genesis?

Yeah, and ... what does that say about "after" the birth ?

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah, and ... what does that say about "after" the birth ?

I'll bold & italicize that part:

15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

No more role than that for virginity, except in the spiritual sense.

Jesus Himself corrected the focus on the physical aspect of her blessedness:
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

It's as if the bearing of Him is of FAR less importance than her knowing & obediance to God.

 

[PeachPuppy24]

.

 

[Thekla]

I'll bold & italicize that part:

15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

No more role than that for virginity, except in the spiritual sense.

Jesus Himself corrected the focus on the physical aspect of her blessedness:
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

It's as if the bearing of Him is of FAR less importance than her knowing & obediance to God.

I think "rather" has been discussed before ... further, yes, Mary did "hear the word of God and keep it".
But I don't understand how that 'necessitates' her not being physically a virgin, as well.

As far as her 'role' of being a virgin at the conception of Christ, why does that (as well) require that she not remain a virgin ?

Finally, if you find her "spiritual virginity" of greater importance than her "physical virginity", why is the attempt to discuss her spiritual virginity characterised as a sort of "embrace of ambiguity" and "intellectual dishonesty" ?

Your "truth" is trying to hide behind ambiguity (again).
It's a problem evident in your other doctrines that confuse the literal with symbology as well.

unable to address his clearly presented points with any intellectual honesty

and assignment of the effort to engage in discussion of the spiritual aspects of virginity to the motivation of "defensive and hysterical" behavior as well as a sort of "authoritarian distress over the body" ? Finally, why characterize this as "Nicolataine" without a) providing historical evidence for the teachings of said person and b) assuming this is an "authoritarian" issue ?

Wouldn't Christ's statement include the notion that Mary is not just "paps and womb" ? She was a whole person, not "just a body".
Why the persistent refocus in this and other threads on only her physical virginity, then ?
How does His statement deny her spiritual and physical virginity ?