Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

I see the PV as a contradiction.
Instead of a PV doctrine, there should be an H&O doctrine (hearing & obeying)

I know that translations require interpretation whereas transliteration does not.
You must transliterate the word to form a translation.
That's where parsing Hebrew & Greek become important.
Is that what you're pointing out?

Mostly the "mistakes" and mistraslations seem to take place from Greek to English..... The same with the fillioque, Augustine and so on...

Rick Otto said:

I see the PV as a contradiction.
Instead of a PV doctrine, there should be an H&O doctrine (hearing & obeying)

I know that translations require interpretation whereas transliteration does not.
You must transliterate the word to form a translation.
That's where parsing Hebrew & Greek become important.
Is that what you're pointing out?

Click to expand...

This Interlinear does a rather excellent job of parsing the greek and hebrew [best to download to used the advanced features]. I have been using it for years and I highly recommend it.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

The word trinity may not be in scripture but the concept of the Trinity sure is and can be seen as early as Genesis and through out all scripture. I did not need to be taught by a man that The Godhead was made up of God the Father The word being Spoken and the Spirit who moves,, This is the OT in the NT we see God the Father, The word who became flesh and now is Called Jesus, And the Holy Spirit.. What we do not see is anywhere in scripture that even hints to the fact that Mary was a forever virgin. We also do not see anywhere in scripture the very Apostles even mentioning Mary as being any one more special than any other of those who belong to Christ.

Rick Otto said:

Not to simply be contentious, but this (bolded & italicized) is in contradiction to the assertions I hear in defense of extra-scriptural Traditions that illiteracy was the norm.
If one can't read & yet be literate in notions as sophisticated & nuanced as Celtic & Platonic trinity concepts, one could as easily be informed of the NT transition from the OT as well, especialy since the OT background information was common knowledge to that region.
Paganization would be assimilated from even more proximate sources like the Philistines & the Assyrians, etc. as well as Egyptians & Romans - at least as much as the Greeks & Celts, I would think.

That mini-rant was inspired by my assertion that any oral tradition mentioned in scripture isn't necessarily any different than what's written, but is necessarily in harmony with what's written.

Click to expand...

I think the "danger" was also in the movement of evangelization into any culture that had a particular (non-Christian) concept of trinity. In this sense, literacy is not the issue per se, but the "default understanding" in the particular culture is the danger. Where the expectation was that the Messiah would be a liberator from the Romans for ex., the default understanding mistakes the identity of Christ for something else. We live in a time and culture where the understanding of Trinity has saturated the 'mileau' and thus informed the default understanding. In the early centuries, however (and to some extent even now) the understanding of Trinity was not clear. (IMO, Trinity includes an understanding of the identity of Christ, not just the Trinity as a whole. This was a serious and repeated issue early on.)

Frankly, I think it is no "accident" that these battles (represented and 'crystalized' in the early Ecumenical Councils) dealt with this as Christianity spread. Clearly, as the record shows, all the competing ideas on the identity of Christ and Trinity had extensive scriptural support. Humans do tend to "read/understand" through the lense of their bias. The scriptures evidence not only teaching but "mentoring" in understanding (Paul and Timothy come to mind). The mentoring is in part the content of Tradition -- just as Christ before His ascension taught the correct interpretation of scripture. (If all were so readily apparent in scripture, there would be no error nor any need for Christ to teach this.)

Athanasius, in commenting on the dispute with the Arians over the identity of Christ, notes the appeal to scripture and Tradition. The Arians had a quiver full of scripture at hand; it was not ultimately scripture that "won the day" in that round.

(The examples of the Platonic and Celtic notions of trinity were off the top of my head, btw as pertinent to the discussion of Trinity. I don't think the Celtic idea was discussed at any Council. But as Christianity moved into Celtic lands, there was the potential danger that Trinity would be understood as the 'default Celtic concept'. The Platonic understanding of trinity was heirarchical, and seems to have left a residue in some Christian explanations of Trinity. )

Rick Otto said:

I see the PV as a contradiction.
Instead of a PV doctrine, there should be an H&O doctrine (hearing & obeying)

Click to expand...

I can agree to a point - that is what the PV does teach, but by example. In covering the conception, parturition and birth of Christ it directly indicates the identity of Christ. But what should not be forgotten was that Mary was a particular person with a particular role in the Incarnation and the history of salvation. Her life lived out in Christ is not exactly like Peter's, nor Paul's, nor like any other Christian's. In relationship with God, we remain particular persons -- and this is evidenced in scripture (or how else would we explain the stylistic differences between the Gospel writers, or sense a different personality in Peter vs. John or any other apostle).

We are all to hear and obey, indeed. And in recounting the lives of earlier Christians, one notes that in hearing and obeying - where it is "not me who lives, but Christ who lives in me", in losing one's life to Christ one does not cease to be the unique person created by God. David is not confused with Abraham, John the Baptist is not Thomas, Peter and Paul are distinct. We do not, in Christ, revert to some "primordial ooze" of non-differentiation of persons. And this does return theologically to Trinity, "three Persons, one essence".

Love is relational -- if the personhood of Christians is abrogated in the loss of personhood, there is not love. Thus, Saints are remembered as persons. The PV of Mary is the particular experience of this (not that) person in Christ and further indicates the identity of Christ and her particular "living out" of her life in Christ.

I am glad that nobody has yet come up with a doctrine of PV succession like papal succession.

bbbbbbb said:

I am glad that nobody has yet come up with a doctrine of PV succession like papal succession.

Click to expand...

Not yet anyways.

If there comes a time that that will be helpful in explaining something or keeping the flock corralled for what ever reason, it could happen.

What we do not see is anywhere in scripture that even hints to the fact that Mary was a forever virgin.

Click to expand...

Yeah that is why I mentioned translation is important.. The hints are in the greek language as the grammar points to it... but unfortunately it is lost in the tranlsation...

We also do not see anywhere in scripture the very Apostles even mentioning Mary as being any one more special than any other of those who belong to Christ.

Click to expand...

That all "generations will call you blessed" is not a special mention? If that would not convience you then nothing will ....

bbbbbbb said:

I am glad that nobody has yet come up with a doctrine of PV succession like papal succession.

Click to expand...

What does EV has anything to do with papal succession? clueless here

Philothei said:

What does EV has anything to do with papal succession? clueless here

Click to expand...

In reality it has nothing to do with it. However, the point I tried to make was that one denomination invented a doctrine (papal succession) in an attempt to establish its own claims to spiritual authority. In the same way, another denomination could just as easily develop a doctrine of a succession following Mary of virgins in an attempt to establish its spiritual authority.

Spritual authority to what? if you do not specify your claim is moot. There goes your theory what is the agenda behind PV? your call....LOL....

what is it? the Virgin domination of the universe?

Philothei said:

Yeah that is why I mentioned translation is important.. The hints are in the greek language as the grammar points to it... but unfortunately it is lost in the tranlsation...


That all "generations will call you blessed" is not a special mention? If that would not convience you then nothing will ....

Click to expand...

Can you show me where any of the Apostles in their writings called her blessed other than where they are describing the conversation between her and Elizabeth?

Hehehe there was a post by Rd Iakovos....now gone... Hey you have to come back and post again...lol..

I already answered this question... The Apostles included this conversation because they wanted to make a point otherwise they would not have included it in the Bible... Elizabeth says "all generations" and that has been fullfilled so far all generations since the incarnation have been calling her blessed...

bbbbbbb said:

In reality it has nothing to do with it. However, the point I tried to make was that one denomination invented a doctrine (papal succession) in an attempt to establish its own claims to spiritual authority.......

Click to expand...

Actually I believe YOU invented that POV.

What we do not see is anywhere in scripture that even hints to the fact that Mary was a forever virgin.

Click to expand...

Guess what: What we also do not see anywhere in scripture is the fact that Mary died. So shall you conclude that she is still walking around on earth somewhere?

Tu Es Petrus said:

Guess what: What we also do not see anywhere in scripture is the fact that Mary died. So shall you conclude that she is still walking around on earth somewhere?

Click to expand...

Is there also now a unique dogma in the RCC that Mary is still alive and walking around the Earth somewhere, or is your post entirely moot to any discussion of anything?




.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Is there also now a unique dogma in the RCC that Mary is still alive and walking around the Earth somewhere, or is your post entirely moot to any discussion of anything?




.

Click to expand...

Yes, as a ten foot high blue Toyota (or is that a Chevy )

Philothei said:

Spritual authority to what? if you do not specify your claim is moot. There goes your theory what is the agenda behind PV? your call....LOL....

what is it? the Virgin domination of the universe?

Click to expand...

Sort of, yes... by way of her domination of Jesus.

Interestingly enough, the council called to define the Immaculate Conception was faced with the surprise agenda of defining Papal Infallability. The Pope had made sure that only Marian scholars attended and all the Church's scholars opposed to infallability were left in home parishes unprepared. Lord Acton is often quoted withoput people knowing he was speaking against papal infallability when he said,"Power corrupts, & absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Rick Otto said:

Sort of, yes... by way of her domination of Jesus.

Interestingly enough, the council called to define the Immaculate Conception was faced with the surprise agenda of defining Papal Infallability. The Pope had made sure that only Marian scholars attended and all the Church's scholars opposed to infallability were left in home parishes unprepared. Lord Acton is often quoted withoput people knowing he was speaking against papal infallability when he said,"Power corrupts, & absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Click to expand...

Talkin' to the wrong side of the river there