Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Darerca]

I know, me bad, I didn't read the whole thread.
I have a question, not about, her being ever virgin or not,
but my question is:

Why would she need to be ever-virgin?

 

[Uphill Battle]

everything holy seems to happen on a mountian...

From Genesis:
I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

the mountain imagery is consistent, yes.

 

[Thekla]

Tertullian was popular.

I'm not sure what specifically that means ...

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

IIRC, Helvidius questioned it based on "adelphos". Without knowing his background (as the Ebionites held the same view) and the breadth of his thought on the matter, its hard to discover whether this was a "general repugnance" re: virginity or another matter.

Absolutely. You should've learned that before going to school.
Media=freedom of expression.(not just "freedom")

So this means without the 'modern media' there is no freedom of thought ie. the intellect is compromised ?

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.

Do you mean I fail to include adjectives, or use them. I'm not sure which capitilizations you are referring to, or how this effects the conversation.

As for peripheral matters, I am trying to explore the use of loaded terminology like "authoritarian", "freedom of thought", "hysterical" etc.

If I've failed to answer a question, repeat it. In some instances, I need clarification. For example, what is "freedom of thought", and on what evidence is the term "authoritarian" used in this discussion ?

A stereotype of what is not evidence of what?

Not evidence supporting the charge. This example is used so broadly and frequently, it has lost meaning. Further, an historical investigation of the matter (Inquisition) reveals a somewhat different content to the matter (regional variations, govt. versus ecclesial action, pre-trial efforts to obtain more amicable resolution, etc.). But the EO was not involved in this particular history (Inquisition), so I wonder why it was brought up at all.

Your statements seem to imply that the teaching on ever-virginity" was a sort of controlling feature of a totalitarian system in an era where freedom of thought was absent in a mass populace incapable of intellectual endeavor.

I may be wrong, but this is what I understand. So, I wonder, have you investigated the matter more deeply or is this just an "impression". If this is your understanding, then is your distress with the teaching more a matter of "association" with these issues, or is it found within the content of the teaching itself (removed from a time period or "system" you find distasteful) ?

 

[Thekla]

Right. So how big of a group do we need?
The fact that three people of note established a position of doubt fulfills her pre-Enlightenment criteria, if not the repugnance criteria, which I felt was a little bit of rhetoric & couldn't take but half seriously. The half-joke that "he was popular" expressed my thought that if one person finds it important enough to express, undoubtedly there are more who concur.

Perhaps, if you could cite Tertullian, a sense of his disposition to the matter might be discovered.

As for "repugnance", for aprox. 6 months in Mariology, this view re; ever-virginity has been in evidence.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; I'm not sure what specifically that means ...

Me neither, not much, anyway. It has to do with consensus, & I don't argue from that for validity anyway.

IIRC, Helvidius questioned it based on "adelphos". Without knowing his background (as the Ebionites held the same view) and the breadth of his thought on the matter, its hard to discover whether this was a "general repugnance" re: virginity or another matter.

Right, but opposition doesn't require the visceral emotional response I associate with "repugnance".

So this means without the 'modern media' there is no freedom of thought ie. the intellect is compromised ?

Only in black & white, maybe, but saying they didn't have the freedom of expression we enjoy today is not saying they had no freedom at all, & it was a statement about expression, not thought. However, thought is restricted to the information available, so it would be in that sense true to say that their freedom of thought was severly restricted as well - which also not to say it was completely absent then.

Do you mean I fail to include adjectives, or use them. I'm not sure which capitilizations you are referring to, or how this effects the conversation.

Both. This transition above mentioned (from expression to thought)is a good example, I think.

As for peripheral matters, I am trying to explore the use of loaded terminology like "authoritarian", "freedom of thought", "hysterical" etc.

I certainly appreciate that.

If I've failed to answer a question, repeat it. In some instances, I need clarification. For example, what is "freedom of thought", and on what evidence is the term "authoritarian" used in this discussion ?

Ok. Please be patient with my lack of patience, lol.
Freedom of thought for me, would have to mean the person thinking is free(relatively, not absolutely) of cultural conditioning that represses cognition of inconvenient truths.
I can't dictate the terms of the discussion of course, we can only attempt to accomodate each other's terminology up to a point.
For me, authoritarian denotes a person whose orientation is dependant upon temporaly established stuctures, independant of their philosophical legitimacy and thereby willing to violate their conscience (at some point) to accept and especialy to enforce, that authority.

My philosophy of authority is that truth is authoritative. Not in the way that I'm automaticaly going to be obeyed when I speak truth to power, but if I see the truth of say, Herod disrespecting marriage, I have the authority in the matter when i tell him to shape up or ship out, even tho he be king, me just a desert hermit with strong opinions & good public speaking skills. Authority doesn't automaticaly = temporal, even temporal ecclesiastical power. It automaticaly does mean spiritual power, but that power can be temporaly useless (in the sense of making Herod repent) if it is God's plan he not. God may have just been using me to give His truth an evidentiary presence for later judgement in the matter.

Not evidence supporting the charge. This example is used so broadly and frequently, it has lost meaning. Further, an historical investigation of the matter (Inquisition) reveals a somewhat different content to the matter (regional variations, govt. versus ecclesial action, pre-trial efforts to obtain more amicable resolution, etc.). But the EO was not involved in this particular history (Inquisition), so I wonder why it was brought up at all.

It's been awhile, I'm not sure either, except regardless of the arguments over frequency, scope, & duration, but the mere fact of it's existence is damning evidence of errors which are denied by both RCs & EOs, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not saying the EOs or OOs officialy claim inerrancy, but it is implicit in the informal claims of being the "one true" and holding faithfully to "the deposit of faith" etc.

Your statements seem to imply that the teaching on ever-virginity" was a sort of controlling feature of a totalitarian system in an era where freedom of thought was absent in a mass populace incapable of intellectual endeavor.

Bingo, but not in an overtly conscious effort, tho that is probably true in more than a few cases. And by saying this, I do not wish to imply Prots are above this sort of thing. Au contraire, in fact. Control freaking is free of franchise. Plenty of it in the prot camp.

I may be wrong, but this is what I understand. So, I wonder, have you investigated the matter more deeply or is this just an "impression". If this is your understanding, then is your distress with the teaching more a matter of "association" with these issues, or is it found within the content of the teaching itself (removed from a time period or "system" you find distasteful) ?

I found the system increasingly distasteful after my 4th birthday when I believe I experienced the Holy Spirit requiting the love for God I was thinking & feeling about that morning. The establishment of a personal relationship of confidence & trust in God braced me for the culture shock of the Roman Catholicism that kicked in 1st grade when I was forced to spend my day with them (in morning masses followed by school).

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; Perhaps, if you could cite Tertullian, a sense of his disposition to the matter might be discovered.

Not worth the effort, imho . Consensus arguments won't solve the issue of verity for me.

As for "repugnance", for aprox. 6 months in Mariology, this view re; ever-virginity has been in evidence.

Beside the point imho. People's emotional reactions to issues are mostly a distraction from the issue itself, as far determing verity.

 

[Thekla]

Me neither, not much, anyway. It has to do with consensus, & I don't argue from that for validity anyway.

I'm not aware of any EO argument for "consensus", except "consensus" with the Christ, and revelation as received (ie interpretation included, which is the 'content' of tradition).

Right, but opposition doesn't require the visceral emotional response I associate with "repugnance".

Exactly, if I understand. But responses in GT tend to be emotional, and repetitive; often, the distress centers around virginity (not just Mary's virginity, btw).

Only in black & white, maybe, but saying they didn't have the freedom of expression we enjoy today is not saying they had no freedom at all, & it was a statement about expression, not thought. However, thought is restricted to the information available, so it would be in that sense true to say that their freedom of thought was severly restricted as well - which also not to say it was completely absent then.

How have expression and thought become "dichotomous" ? What is in the heart (or mind) will be expressed. But also, what one does can assist in shaping the mind and heart. Maybe I'm wrong, but your response seems to evidence the mind/body split (which seems to be more a western thang ). Doesn't Christ's, and Paul's etc. teachings indicate not a dichotomy but a "sharing" between mind, body, heart, spirit ?

There is something else I find curious about this: the dichotomizing of mind/body whilst also treating the use of the body in expression (worship, veneration, etc) as suspect. How often do those who do not seem to engage the whole (mind and body) in the spiritual life criticize as "empty" those who do engage the mind and body in worship etc. Fasting is called "legalistic", kissing = idolatry, crossing oneself as "superstitious", genuflecting as "show", etc.

As for the issue re:expression (and thought), I wonder what history or investigation you base this on ? IIRC, some of the followers of Pythagorus threatened murder over the disclosure of something related to the square root of 2, but I don't think this sort of thing was necesarily widespread or indicative. And if freedom of expression was so restricted, how were advances in mathematical, medical, etc. fields conveyed
(and researched) ? In fact, how were the likes of Plato and the playwrite Euripides able to get away with criticizing the Olympian pantheon ? Anotherwords, these sorts of things (squelched freedom of expression and thought) are often said of the ancient world, but seem to have their factual basis in aggrandizing modernity, not in the actual history.

Both. This transition above mentioned (from expression to thought)is a good example, I think.

Because I don't understand them as separate. James (Iakovos), echoing Christ, teaches that the tongue can be dangerous (commits murder for ex.) based on content of the heart. And he also teaches to restrain the tongue ? I don't think he's encouraging hypocrisy; I think he's teaching training - curbing the tongue for the effect this may eventually have on the heart.

Ok. Please be patient with my lack of patience, lol.
Freedom of thought for me, would have to mean the person thinking is free(relatively, not absolutely) of cultural conditioning that represses cognition of inconvenient truths.

Understood -- but I think this culture (though less seen) effects the same thing. In fact, mass media just makes the conditioning more pervasive and efficiently executed. But this also seems to assume that I, for example, have not engaged in the investigation of my own thought and belief.
I can't dictate the terms of the discussion of course, we can only attempt to accomodate each other's terminology up to a point.

For me, authoritarian denotes a person whose orientation is dependant upon temporaly established stuctures, independant of their philosophical legitimacy and thereby willing to violate their conscience (at some point) to accept and especialy to enforce, that authority.

Where does that occur in the acceptance of the teaching of ever-virginity ?

I agree, humans can tend to "nurture their own domination", but it seems they often fail to correctly identify what the domination is and where it arises from.

My philosophy of authority is that truth is authoritative. Not in the way that I'm automaticaly going to be obeyed when I speak truth to power, but if I see the truth of say, Herod disrespecting marriage, I have the authority in the matter when i tell him to shape up or ship out, even tho he be king, me just a desert hermit with strong opinions & good public speaking skills. Authority doesn't automaticaly = temporal, even temporal ecclesiastical power. It automaticaly does mean spiritual power, but that power can be temporaly useless (in the sense of making Herod repent) if it is God's plan he not. God may have just been using me to give His truth an evidentiary presence for later judgement in the matter.

I can't disagree with the first part, but you seem to be saying that because the EO teaches the ever-virginity they must be appealing to wordly not spirtual understanding. IE it cannot be fact that Mary remained a virgin.

John the Baptist is an interesting example. Why is no-one offended by his ever-virginity ? Or would it be acceptable to teach that John the Baptist was married and had children ?

It's been awhile, I'm not sure either, except regardless of the arguments over frequency, scope, & duration, but the mere fact of it's existence is damning evidence of errors which are denied by both RCs & EOs, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not saying the EOs or OOs officialy claim inerrancy, but it is implicit in the informal claims of being the "one true" and holding faithfully to "the deposit of faith" etc.

1. Per the Inquisition, it wasn't shared by the EO or OO. So its really not a pertinent example.
2. So, you consider yourself to not "hold the deposit of faith" ? That basically, what you believe didn't come from God, isn't what God revealed, is considered false by the Holy Spirit ? Or is it the EO and OO who say this but know what they say is false ? As I've said in another thread, I don't think any Church (or individual) claims not to have the Holy Spirit and keep to the deposit of faith or whatever.

Bingo, but not in an overtly conscious effort, tho that is probably true in more than a few cases. And by saying this, I do not wish to imply Prots are above this sort of thing. Au contraire, in fact. Control freaking is free of franchise. Plenty of it in the prot camp.

If I may perhaps suggest, it seems your knowledge of EO is from the "ouside", and rather shallow (ie equates structure to known structure whilst missing the contents). I don't intend to be rude by saying this !

But what you suggest has not been my experience at all. And true human freedom is the goal of what the EO does -- because true freedom is only found in Christ.

I found the system increasingly distasteful after my 4th birthday when I believe I experienced the Holy Spirit requiting the love for God I was thinking & feeling about that morning. The establishment of a personal relationship of confidence & trust in God braced me for the culture shock of the Roman Catholicism that kicked in 1st grade when I was forced to spend my day with them (in morning masses followed by school).

Everything that humans do will be to some extent "system" because, imo, the human body is a sort of "system".

But the EO is not the RC, nor necessarily the content of your experience.
Nor (and I cannot speak for RC, but suspect it is the same) does the EO discourage relationship with Christ -- it is the exact opposite.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; I'm not aware of any EO argument for "consensus", except "consensus" with the Christ, and revelation as received (ie interpretation included, which is the 'content' of tradition).

That's the consensus argument I'm talking about - the one that determines the 'content' of tradition (this one included, noting your "t" instead of "T" - another capitalization ambiguation because the PV is "T", not "t" - if I understand correctly)

Exactly, if I understand. But responses in GT tend to be emotional, and repetitive; often, the distress centers around virginity (not just Mary's virginity, btw).

Responses on all sides, you mean? It doesn't matter to you or me if we don't let it.

How have expression and thought become "dichotomous" ?

If by "dichotomous" you mean "two different things", then it becomes dichotomous when in discussing the relative popularity of repugnance dependant upon an infrastructure that allows expression of thought. Nothing can be "popular" unless it is shared, and thoughts are not always shared. Yes, thought is an "expression" in a different sense of the word.

What is in the heart (or mind) will be expressed.

I agree that "truth will out" - even if only in body language or consequences that express the thought that produced them.

But also, what one does can assist in shaping the mind and heart.

Of course it does, but a wicked(natural) heart is incapable of willing spiritual good. It can will what are popularly seen as good works, but not out of good intent.

Maybe I'm wrong, but your response seems to evidence the mind/body split (which seems to be more a western thang ).

So what if?

Doesn't Christ's, and Paul's etc. teachings indicate not a dichotomy but a "sharing" between mind, body, heart, spirit ?

So what if? You have introduced a new word that you use in away that assumes I know what you mean. Please try and pick descriptive terms that are more concrete. I have the feeling that if I have to try and nail you down to any one meaning, even in just this context, you're going to introduce another new term that allows you more ambiguity to wiggle around in and further distance ourselves from the issue at hand, veryfing PV.

There is something else I find curious about this: the dichotomizing of mind/body whilst also treating the use of the body in expression (worship, veneration, etc) as suspect. How often do those who do not seem to engage the whole (mind and body) in the spiritual life criticize as "empty" those who do engage the mind and body in worship etc. Fasting is called "legalistic", kissing = idolatry, crossing oneself as "superstitious", genuflecting as "show", etc.

Not by me, and it is unfair of you (i feel) to make me responsible for other people's baggage in a discussion between ourselves about what we ourselves believe, when I profess no loyalty to any of the congregations, but what comes from my loyaly to Christ.

As for the issue re:expression (and thought), I wonder what history or investigation you base this on ? IIRC, some of the followers of Pythagorus threatened murder over the disclosure of something related to the square root of 2, but I don't think this sort of thing was necesarily widespread or indicative. And if freedom of expression was so restricted, how were advances in mathematical, medical, etc. fields conveyed
(and researched) ?

Good grief! How much investigation does it require to determine the lack of mass communication in the first few centuries after jesus Christ? Or to equate the relative lack of means of conveyance of expression with the relative absence of freedom to convey expression?
Forgive me again, but you're posts are begining to get longer and seemingly more contentious at the same time they are drifting further from any solid evidence of PV.

In fact, how were the likes of Plato and the playwrite Euripides able to get away with criticizing the Olympian pantheon ? Anotherwords, these sorts of things (squelched freedom of expression and thought) are often said of the ancient world, but seem to have their factual basis in aggrandizing modernity, not in the actual history.

My remarks about freedom of expression were not limited to exceptional people who had such large reputations as leaders of thought in their day. I have not 'often said such a thing' I have made the staement within a specific context & not about specificaly exceptional people in antiquity, rather the common man's experience. The squelching of freedom of thought & expression are a fact of both modernity and antiquity. There is more freedom of speech today in spite of an even greater amount of repression.

[Both. This transition above mentioned (from expression to thought)is a good example, I think.(of introducing unnecessarily complicating ambiguity)

Because I don't understand them as separate. James (Iakovos), echoing Christ, teaches that the tongue can be dangerous (commits murder for ex.) based on content of the heart. And he also teaches to restrain the tongue ? I don't think he's encouraging hypocrisy; I think he's teaching training - curbing the tongue for the effect this may eventually have on the heart.

Well then, bone up! (lol)
There is a sense in which thought an expression ARE two different things.
Thought is an internal expression of the heart. What it takes for that thought to become a thing of 'popular reugnance' requires external expression of the type contextualy defined by our own discussion.
It is a mistake to try and force another sense of the term into a context that doesn't allow that. Context has dictated the external sense of "expression" as distinct from the "internal expression" that thought (at least initialy)is.
You are exhausting me with rabbit trails.
If you can't prove PV, I'd appreciate you're just admitting it. I don't need to 7 won't rub your face in it.
I don't need to disprove what there isn't any solid evidence for, so please don't bother to ask me too. I don't insist disbelieving it dogmaticaly, but isn't it dogma for you to believe it?

Understood -- but I think this culture (though less seen) effects the same thing.

And I agree. I think i just did in above remarks.

In fact, mass media just makes the conditioning more pervasive and efficiently executed.

Yes, and at the same time, it offers the opportunity of freedom from that conditioning by making competing ideas more available to more people. We are still individualy responsible for our reactions to information, but now we have a vastly greater menu of reactions to choose from. We can shave our head and rip up a picture of the pope on stage & not get jailed or killed. We can pamphlet the cars in a Presbyterian parking lot and claim John Calvin was a flaming homosexual without facing jail time or a burn stake in Geneva.

But this also seems to assume that I, for example, have not engaged in the investigation of my own thought and belief.

Yes, I'm sorry you're offended, but such is the nature of criticism.
I suffer the same perception when I'm criticized.

For me, authoritarian denotes a person whose orientation is dependant upon temporaly established stuctures, independant of their philosophical legitimacy and thereby willing to violate their conscience (at some point) to accept and especialy to enforce, that authority.

Where does that occur in the acceptance of the teaching of ever-virginity ?

Again, "for me" (IMHO), it happens wherever extra-biblical Tradition is given authority equal to or greater than, scripture. (Yes, I know the bible is Tradition, hence "extra-biblical")

I agree, humans can tend to "nurture their own domination", but it seems they often fail to correctly identify what the domination is and where it arises from.

Agreed.

I can't disagree with the first part, but you seem to be saying that because the EO teaches the ever-virginity they must be appealing to wordly not spirtual understanding. IE it cannot be fact that Mary remained a virgin.

Right! It is worldly understanding that seeks physical signs & wonders to verify spiritual realities. Worldly understand hears the preaching of the gospel as foolishness because they are perishing, clinging only to what they can sense to be true with they're natural mind, 1Cor2:14 explaining that to be impossible. But just because I'm unregenerate right now, doesn't mean I'm not predestined to be regenerated(born again-in spirit) in the hour of my execution as a thief.

John the Baptist is an interesting example. Why is no-one offended by his ever-virginity ? Or would it be acceptable to teach that John the Baptist was married and had children ?

LOL, I suppose it is easier to claim ever-virginity if you are incapable of giving birth. I wasn't aware of any PV teachings about him. It would be acceptable to teach as an opinon I suppose, if there was the least bit of any information to support it, but I'm unaware of any. At any rate, his lack of a womb would make PV for him to be completely plausible and all the available information in scripture on him would render marriage and children implausible.
Another pretty common sense problem that still doesn't help me believe PV an iota.

1. Per the Inquisition, it wasn't shared by the EO or OO. So its really not a pertinent example.

Maybe not to you, but it is a huge part of why I was born in America, not Europe.

2. So, you consider yourself to not "hold the deposit of faith" ?

I consider the term in it's fullest, intended sense to be oxymoronic.
Faith is itself intangible. You recognize it by it's 'fruit'. Depoasits are evidence of history, not faith. A history of faith investigates artifacts, but centers on beliefs, not artifacts and Apostolic succession subjects belief to artifact (human ordination), so the "deposits" are not the beliefs and many of what is considered a deposit is extra-biblical. Scripture is the only artifact that God's word (scripture) declares to be inerrant.
PV is not explicit in scripture. It needs extra-biblical Tradition to support it.

That basically, what you believe didn't come from God, isn't what God revealed, is considered false by the Holy Spirit ?

Please. You go from the sublime to the ridiculous with incredible speed.

Or is it the EO and OO who say this but know what they say is false ?

LOL. You don't want the RC PV troops behind you?

As I've said in another thread, I don't think any Church (or individual) claims not to have the Holy Spirit and keep to the deposit of faith or whatever.

Me neither. I have no diahrrea why it is even relevant.

If I may perhaps suggest, it seems your knowledge of EO is from the "ouside", and rather shallow (ie equates structure to known structure whilst missing the contents). I don't intend to be rude by saying this !

That's alright. I prefer brief rudeness to exhausting ambiguities.

But what you suggest has not been my experience at all. And true human freedom is the goal of what the EO does -- because true freedom is only found in Christ.

I wouldn't expect it to be the experience of anyone who equates extra-biblical Tradition to be on par authoritatively, with scripture. We can still share a bottle of Ouzo.

Everything that humans do will be to some extent "system" because, imo, the human body is a sort of "system".

I agree. It is a natural fact, and it why we need spiritual intervention.

But the EO is not the RC, nor necessarily the content of your experience.
Nor (and I cannot speak for RC, but suspect it is the same) does the EO discourage relationship with Christ -- it is the exact opposite.

Yeah, that's the story I hear too. Until they all disband their levitacal style, I ain't buyin' it... but I'll buy the Ouzo.

 

[Thekla]

That's the consensus argument I'm talking about - the one that determines the 'content' of tradition (this one included, noting your "t" instead of "T" - another capitalization ambiguation because the PV is "T", not "t" - if I understand correctly)

fine, Tradition
Again, the Tradition you received was the Bible, NT and OT. The Tradition other Churches received was more than that. Its a matter of history.

Responses on all sides, you mean? It doesn't matter to you or me if we don't let it.

Eventually, yes. When the opportunity for in depth discussion is skipped and becomes a spill of one-liners using loaded terms, there is no point of discussion. Why communicate when one can keep everything "skin deep"; it makes disliking the other much easier that way.

If by "dichotomous" you mean "two different things", then it becomes dichotomous when in discussing the relative popularity of repugnance dependant upon an infrastructure that allows expression of thought. Nothing can be "popular" unless it is shared, and thoughts are not always shared. Yes, thought is an "expression" in a different sense of the word.

By dichotomy I refer to the split introduced in the whole (the person), where one is "discrete parts" (mind or body, etc). As for popular ideas in the ancient world and freedom of expression -- can you please provide historical evidence for the claim ? I don't know what you're thinking of as support for the claim.

Of course it does, but a wicked(natural) heart is incapable of willing spiritual good. It can will what are popularly seen as good works, but not out of good intent.

This is what you seem to be assigning to the teaching of ever-virginity, or its basis -- or am I incorrect ?

So what if?

Because it effects the way you understand the issue.

So what if? You have introduced a new word that you use in away that assumes I know what you mean. Please try and pick descriptive terms that are more concrete. I have the feeling that if I have to try and nail you down to any one meaning, even in just this context, you're going to introduce another new term that allows you more ambiguity to wiggle around in and further distance ourselves from the issue at hand, veryfing PV.

I am trying to express that the descriptives (mind, body, heart, etc) do not indicate a division between but aspects of a whole. We were created "whole", and that is as we were meant to be. Not bits and pieces.

And I do not share the opinion that delving into the way we understand is a diversion. I consider it an essential part of communication.

Thus, I am not trying to "wriggle out", I'm "diving in".

Not by me, and it is unfair of you (i feel) to make me responsible for other people's baggage in a discussion between ourselves about what we ourselves believe, when I profess no loyalty to any of the congregations, but what comes from my loyaly to Christ.

Then why all the comments about "legalism" and Tradition and tradition in GT ? The illustrations may not refer to your statements, but are illustrations of the way assigning value to content without the inspection and experience of content leads to bias and statements relying on stereotype instead of investigation.

In this case, you seem to have started with the assumption that the PV must be false.

Good grief! How much investigation does it require to determine the lack of mass communication in the first few centuries after jesus Christ? Or to equate the relative lack of means of conveyance of expression with the relative absence of freedom to convey expression?
Forgive me again, but you're posts are begining to get longer and seemingly more contentious at the same time they are drifting further from any solid evidence of PV.

If the statement of the PV requires substantiation, why should substantiation of the counter claim - or its basis - not require substantiation ? I thought this was a discussion
And it seems to me that part of the problem includes different world-views.
If you want to try to understand, then its worth my time and effort to try to point out issues which interrupt understanding. If you don't seriously want to try and understand, please let me know. There are many things I'd rather be doing than slogging through this discussion if there is not a dedication to actual dialogue.

My remarks about freedom of expression were not limited to exceptional people who had such large reputations as leaders of thought in their day. I have not 'often said such a thing' I have made the staement within a specific context & not about specificaly exceptional people in antiquity, rather the common man's experience. The squelching of freedom of thought & expression are a fact of both modernity and antiquity. There is more freedom of speech today in spite of an even greater amount of repression.

This sounds not unreasonable. Yet frequently, like the matter of the Inquisition, I have frequently found that closer inspection reveals a different content. The monolithic statement must typically ignore large swaths of fact in order to summarize. And if the facts re: a few "exceptional people" cannot be utilized as counter-example, why bring up Tertullian etc. as counter-examples ?

[Both. This transition above mentioned (from expression to thought)is a good example, I think.(of introducing unnecessarily complicating ambiguity)

So call me ambiguous; I do not think the two are so divorced.

Well then, bone up! (lol)
There is a sense in which thought an expression ARE two different things.
Thought is an internal expression of the heart. What it takes for that thought to become a thing of 'popular reugnance' requires external expression of the type contextualy defined by our own discussion.
It is a mistake to try and force another sense of the term into a context that doesn't allow that. Context has dictated the external sense of "expression" as distinct from the "internal expression" that thought (at least initialy)is.

Not so much in eastern thought (which uses also the terminology of the NT - heart, mind, spirit, etc) and describes the manner in which they tend to interact and influence one another. As for the forcing - this is exactly what I mean by mistaking form, and its apparent similarity to what you dislike, for the content you thus imagine it to have. This is precisely the matter I am trying to uncover and discuss.

You are exhausting me with rabbit trails.
If you can't prove PV, I'd appreciate you're just admitting it. I don't need to 7 won't rub your face in it.

How can I "prove" it ? Can you conclusively prove the crucifixion of Christ, or the authenticity of the NT for that matter ? I'm not trying to be silly -- and I know people are tired of the comparison, but why not require of yourself the same ?

I don't need to disprove what there isn't any solid evidence for, so please don't bother to ask me too. I don't insist disbelieving it dogmaticaly, but isn't it dogma for you to believe it?

Doesn't matter. I believe it.
But dismissing the matter as the result of domination under authoritarian rule is hardly proveable either.

And I agree. I think i just did in above remarks.
Yes, and at the same time, it offers the opportunity of freedom from that conditioning by making competing ideas more available to more people. We are still individualy responsible for our reactions to information, but now we have a vastly greater menu of reactions to choose from. We can shave our head and rip up a picture of the pope on stage & not get jailed or killed. We can pamphlet the cars in a Presbyterian parking lot and claim John Calvin was a flaming homosexual without facing jail time or a burn stake in Geneva.

We have more freedom to engage in sin, yup. I don't call 'ripping up picture' etc freedom. Its just childish behavior.

Yes, I'm sorry you're offended, but such is the nature of criticism.
I suffer the same perception when I'm criticized.

Really ? different worlds again -- there is exploration which engenders communication. Then there is assumption, which cuts communication off. The latter is authoritarianism, imo.

For me, authoritarian denotes a person whose orientation is dependant upon temporaly established stuctures, independant of their philosophical legitimacy and thereby willing to violate their conscience (at some point) to accept and especialy to enforce, that authority.

To me, authoritarianism is weakness. Authority is a different matter.
It seems here that you think I'm violating my conscience in accepting the PV ?

Again, "for me" (IMHO), it happens wherever extra-biblical Tradition is given authority equal to or greater than, scripture. (Yes, I know the bible is Tradition, hence "extra-biblical")

OK, then thats your tradition, or Tradition. As long as you recognize it, thats fine. We both appeal to a t/Tradition.

Right! It is worldly understanding that seeks physical signs & wonders to verify spiritual realities. Worldly understand hears the preaching of the gospel as foolishness because they are perishing, clinging only to what they can sense to be true with they're natural mind, 1Cor2:14 explaining that to be impossible. But just because I'm unregenerate right now, doesn't mean I'm not predestined to be regenerated(born again-in spirit) in the hour of my execution as a thief.

That seeks. But how do you know to assign the PV to this understanding ?
What about the truth will out - will be expressed in the physical ? That the person, made whole by Christ will be what they were created to be, and that this will not be precisely the same for each created person ?

LOL, I suppose it is easier to claim ever-virginity if you are incapable of giving birth. I wasn't aware of any PV teachings about him. It would be acceptable to teach as an opinon I suppose, if there was the least bit of any information to support it, but I'm unaware of any. At any rate, his lack of a womb would make PV for him to be completely plausible and all the available information in scripture on him would render marriage and children implausible.
Another pretty common sense problem that still doesn't help me believe PV an iota.

Sorry, there are virgin male Saints - both the spiritual meaning and who also remained celibate.

Maybe not to you, but it is a huge part of why I was born in America, not Europe.

How does the Inquisition support the notion of
authoritarianism in the east ?

I consider the term in it's fullest, intended sense to be oxymoronic.
Faith is itself intangible. You recognize it by it's 'fruit'. Depoasits are evidence of history, not faith. A history of faith investigates artifacts, but centers on beliefs, not artifacts and Apostolic succession subjects belief to artifact (human ordination), so the "deposits" are not the beliefs and many of what is considered a deposit is extra-biblical. Scripture is the only artifact that God's word (scripture) declares to be inerrant.
PV is not explicit in scripture. It needs extra-biblical Tradition to support it.
Please. You go from the sublime to the ridiculous with incredible speed.

It was an illustration

Yeah, that's the story I hear too. Until they all disband their levitacal style, I ain't buyin' it... but I'll buy the Ouzo.

well, at least you know where your bias lies (its the dress code), though ignoring content makes the clothes make the man.

Thanks for the offer, but no Ouzo til' after Pascha

 

[katholikos]

That's the consensus argument I'm talking about - the one that determines the 'content' of tradition (this one included, noting your "t" instead of "T" - another capitalization ambiguation because the PV is "T", not "t" - if I understand correctly)....

Big "T", little "t" is a Catholic thing, not an EO thing. If I am wrong, Thekla can correct me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Big "T", little "t" is a Catholic thing, not an EO thing. If I am wrong, Thekla can correct me.

Tis no big "thang"

 

[Musa80]

Big "T", little "t" is a Catholic thing, not an EO thing. If I am wrong, Thekla can correct me.

I'm not Thekla obviously, but big T and little t are an Orthodox thang as well.

 

[lionroar0]

I know, me bad, I didn't read the whole thread.
I have a question, not about, her being ever virgin or not,
but my question is:

Why would she need to be ever-virgin?

Because the humanity of Christ came from Mary. If Mary had other children, then these other children would share in the humanity of Jesus. His humanity would no longer be unique to Him.

Peace

 

[Anoetos]

Lion,

With all due respect. One of the points of the incarnation is that there is no difference between the humanity of Christ and our own; except that He carried no taint of original sin in His flesh. However, this was not due to His humanity. It was due to His divinity.

To suggest that there is some essential difference between the humanity of Jesus and our own is a species of gnosticism actually though I am sure you didn't mean that.

When God made Adam, he was without sin. This means that there is nothing which originally inhered in humanity; in the flesh, that was sinful. Sin and death came through the fall. Jesus is exempt from this, but not from being every bit as completely human as we are.

Whatever in His humanity that is yet something more than ours is due to His being also Divine.

 

[lionroar0]

With all due respect. One of the points of the incarnation is that there is no difference between the humanity of Christ and our own; except that He carried no taint of original sin in His flesh. However, this was not due to His humanity. It was due to His divinity.

That is the difference between His humanity and ours. We have a wounded human nature. He doesn't.

However, this was not due to His humanity. It was due to His divinity.

As God saved Mary from original sin at the moment of her conception. He then got His human nature from her.

Peace

 

[Anoetos]

That is the difference between His humanity and ours. We have a wounded human nature. He doesn't.

Right. But original sin was not a part of the original creation. It isn't "natural" to humanity in the sense that humanity can be (and once was) humanity without it. This is the humanity Jesus had and it is not essentially different from ours.

He was sinless because He is God, not because He is a man.

As God saved Mary from original sin at the moment of her conception. He then got His human nature from her.

Peace

Similarly, Christ's sinlessness is NOT dependent upon His conception as a true child of the Immaculata. Christ's humanity is that of a pre lapsus Adam, not because Mary was conceived without sin. His humanity is substantially identical with what we will have at the resurrection. This is why He is the Second Adam, the Adam Kadmon.

 

[lionroar0]

Right. But original sin was not a part of the original creation. It isn't "natural" to humanity in the sense that humanity can be (and once was) humanity without it. This is the humanity Jesus had and it is not essentially different from ours.

He was sinless because He is God, not because He is a man.

He is sinless because He was born with out sin and because He is God. The originator of both His human nature and divine nature is God the Father.

Similarly, Christ's sinlessness is NOT dependent upon His conception as a true child of the Immaculata.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Jesus got His sinless human nature from Mary, because she is The Immaculate Conception. She was made so by God. T

His humanity is substantially identical with what we will have at the resurrection. This is why He is the Second Adam, the Adam Kadmon.

I do agree that we will have the same human nature as Him at the ressurection but we do not have His human nature now.

Peace

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

...It isn't "natural"...

I'm not sure what that means. It is natural to make a choice, even a wrong choice. And Adam's act of sinning was not a supernatural act. So, techinically, by definition, it would seem that Adam's sin was "natural" because it was the act was within the laws of nature.

 

[Anoetos]

I'm not sure what that means. It is natural to make a choice, even a wrong choice. And Adam's act of sinning was not a supernatural act. So, techinically, by definition, it would seem that Adam's sin was "natural" because it was the act was within the laws of nature.

I put "natural" in quotes there because I was using the word denotatively and not technically. I was not referring to nature per se but to the common usage of the word "natural" to mean fitting or seemly.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

POST AND RUN...


The Protoevangelium of James

"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).