Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why did I suddenly have a vision of the Jews shouting at Christ on the cross, "Prove you are the Christ! Come down from that cross and we shall worship you."

Ah, so you support the rubric that a dogma is true if those who think it is say it is. If so, I'm sure you accept all the teachings of the JW's as dogmatic facts.




.

 

[Thekla]

Sure, to keeping it simple.(without reciting the entire gospel).
God wanted mankind redeemed & mankind couldn't come up with the "flesh-price". It was a bail-out.

Then, if this was the sole purpose (leaving aside Kristos's question, which is important, imo) why did God create a physical creation that would require a "flesh-price" ?

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Thekla

Why is physical virginity so threatening to people ?
​

Because it is weaponized.
Sexual purity is strongly related to ritual purity and so it has power, among other reasons.

 

[katholikos]

[/color]

Ah, so you support the rubric that a dogma is true if those who think it is say it is. If so, I'm sure you accept all the teachings of the JW's as dogmatic facts.

No, because they do not have apostolic succession. Only the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox enjoy that, therefore only the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Bishops have the right to claim authority as Church leaders

That is the REAL issue at hand. This bit about Mary is a sideshow

 

[Rick Otto]

Why did I suddenly have a vision of the Jews shouting at Christ on the cross, "Prove you are the Christ! Come down from that cross and we shall worship you."

You might be like them. You might insist on physical evidence of spiritual reality.
That's what I think was involved involved in inventing the papacy & re-animating the corpse of the Levitical priesthood,

 

[Thekla]

Because it is weaponized.
Sexual purity is strongly related to ritual purity and so it has power, among other reasons.

Or, modern folks can't stand the idea of something that is "not available for consumption" ?

 

[Rick Otto]

Then, if this was the sole purpose (leaving aside Kristos's question, which is important, imo) why did God create a physical creation that would require a "flesh-price" ?

Why not?
Don't you prefer to exsist?
Oh! You mean why didn't He make reality problem free?

 

[Rick Otto]

Or, modern folks can't stand the idea of something that is "not available for consumption" ?

That would be a reaction from a modern perspective.
These issues are timeless. Moderns have a freedom of expression ancients lacked. I'm sure many of that time had the same consumer attitude.

Forbidden Fruit does have an attraction for some, but if one virgin isn't available for consumption, there will be another who is, so that can't be the entire answer.

 

[Thekla]

Why not?
Don't you prefer to exsist?
Oh! You mean why didn't He make reality problem free?

Perhaps another way to put it: was there any value to the Incarnation of Christ other than a "flesh price" (commodification-value) ?

 

[Thekla]

That would be a reaction from a modern perspective.
These issues are timeless. Moderns have a freedom of expression ancients lacked. I'm sure many of that time had the same consumer attitude.

Forbidden Fruit does have an attraction for some, but if one virgin isn't available for consumption, there will be another who is, so that can't be the entire answer.

Do you have evidence that the teaching of the ever-virginity was so repugnant pre-enlightenment (and the rise of the middle class) ?

As for "freedom of expression" theory -- there needs to be an anthropological and historical substantiation to the claim.

 

[katholikos]

Why did I suddenly have a vision of the Jews shouting at Christ on the cross, "Prove you are the Christ! Come down from that cross and we shall worship you."

You might be like them. You might insist on physical evidence of spiritual reality.
That's what I think was involved involved in inventing the papacy & re-animating the corpse of the Levitical priesthood,

That is why God became flesh. That is why there are miracles. God gives us physical evidence of spiritual reality. That is HIS doing.

But that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about people who reject truth even AFTER it has been demonstrated

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; Do you have evidence that the teaching of the ever-virginity was so repugnant pre-enlightenment (and the rise of the middle class) ?

"Tertullian(155-220), while holding that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, denied that her virginity was preserved in his birth, thus emphasizing the reality of her son's body, and the unorthodox monk Jovinian (who died in about 405), who denied that virginity as such was a higher state than marriage, and that abstinence as such was better than thankful eating, also denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was condemned by synods at Rome and Milan.These views were shared by his contemporary Helvidius, but were not repeated in the following centuries." from Wikipedia

As for "freedom of expression" theory -- there needs to be an anthropological and historical substantiation to the claim.

You're being silly. First, it isn't "theory". The lack of mass media alone makes my statement true.
The fact that no one gets burned at the stake or stoned for denouncing the pope anymore is also a common-sense fact that substantiates it.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=katholikos; That is why God became flesh.

No it isn't. He did that so He could die for us.

 

[Rick Otto]

Perhaps another way to put it: was there any value to the Incarnation of Christ other than a "flesh price" (commodification-value) ?

Undoubtedly.

 

[Thekla]

quote=Thekla; Do you have evidence that the teaching of the ever-virginity was so repugnant pre-enlightenment (and the rise of the middle class) ?
"Tertullian(155-220), while holding that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, denied that her virginity was preserved in his birth, thus emphasizing the reality of her son's body, and the unorthodox monk Jovinian (who died in about 405), who denied that virginity as such was a higher state than marriage, and that abstinence as such was better than thankful eating, also denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was condemned by synods at Rome and Milan.These views were shared by his contemporary Helvidius, but were not repeated in the following centuries." from Wikipedia

The response remains vague:
1. was there a popular/populist distress over ever-virginity
2. and the action refers to the incorrectness of the teaching

You're being silly. First, it isn't "theory". The lack of mass media alone makes my statement true.
The fact that no one gets burned at the stake or stoned for denouncing the pope anymore is also a common-sense fact that substantiates it.

Media = freedom

and a stereotype is not evidence

 

[katholikos]

No it isn't. He did that so He could die for us.

Okay, I'll re-phrase.
That is ONE of the reasons God took on flesh

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla;The response remains vague:
1. was there a popular/populist distress over ever-virginity

Tertullian was popular.

2. and the action refers to the incorrectness of the teaching

I'm not sure what you mean. Tertulian, Jovinian, & Helvidius thought it was incorrect before the Enlightenment & the middle class arrived.
Question asked & answered.

Media = freedom

Absolutely. You should've learned that before going to school.
Media=freedom of expression.(not just "freedom")
Thekla, I'm noticing you drop adjectives, Capitalize, and use ambiguity yourself seemingly to change the subject to peripheral topics.
Rarely do I get affirmation on an answered question, from my pov.

and a stereotype is not evidence

A stereotype of what is not evidence of what?

 

[Rick Otto]

Okay, I'll re-phrase.
That is ONE of the reasons God took on flesh

Thank you.

 

[Anoetos]

Tertullian was popular.

Just guessing, but I think Thekla was asking whether the belief that Jesus had siblings from His Mother was ever commonly held, not whether it was held by someone "popular". In this sense, the reference is not to "popularity" but to "something common to a group of people"

I'm not sure what you mean. Tertulian, Jovinian, & Helvidius thought it was incorrect before the Enlightenment & the middle class arrived.
Question asked & answered.

I am new to the thread and haven't read the whole thing, so if you've given citations of these worthies expressing the opinion that Mary was not Semper Virgo please direct me to them.

If not, could you give them now please?

 

[Anoetos]

Re: Tertullian:

I found the Wikipedia citation which is from Jurgens.

I could mention that Tertullian died in heresy and was often out of the mainstream of Christian thought whether he was talking about traducianism or this particular issue, but it is probably sufficient to point out that as important as Tertullian was where he was catholic, he was not always, and, as often as not, represents a rather singular voice.

Helvidius was a relative nobody theologically and Jovinian was a heretic.

The point remains that the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, after bearing Christ, is affirmed by, by far, the greater weight of ancient testimony: Jerome, Augustine and Athanasius outweigh nearly everyone, not to mention Hilary, Ambrose, Origen and Siricius.

Now, this does not mean that it is true.

But it does mean that the opinion of a single father, during a period of intense theological expansion and development should be given an appropriate value.