Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Musa80]

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" ?
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 ?

And once again the one called Thekla shall come forth and layeth the smacketh down on those who would speak falsehoods hidden behind big words they don't understand.

 

[Doveaman]

Traditionally, I have not believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary citing the numerous times in the Gospels that Jesus' brothers (Greek=adelphois) as proof that Jesus must have had siblings. Of course I am aware of the the counter argument that adelphos (this is the singular of adelphois) can also mean cousin but traditionally I have rejected that idea with the reasoning that the 'usual' meaning of adelphos is brother and that there was no reason to use the secondary reason.

However, I thought of something recently. In the Gospel of John 19.

Now if Jesus had siblings, he was obviously the oldest and thus would ahve been charged with caring for his mother once his father was out of the picture (and seeing as Joseph never appears, we can assume that he is dead by this point). Upon the death of the oldest son, care for the mother would pass to the next oldest son. However, that is not what happens here. Jesus instead asks a friend to care for his mother and commands them to know each other as if they were mother and son.

I know that this does not prove the perpetual virginity. After all, one can have sex without concieving or Joseph and Mary could have had only females (who in the society would not have been able to care for Mary for the same reasons that Mary could not care for herself). But I do think that it lends credence to translatingadelphois as 'cousins' and certainly makes the idea of the perpetual virginity much more plausible.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Did I miss anything or is this already common knowledge? BTF

Matt 12:46-47
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

Matt 13:55-56
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?

John 2:12
After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples.

John 7:3,5,10
Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea...For even his own brothers did not believe in him...However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also.

Rom 3:4
Let God be true, and every man a liar.

 

[Thekla]

Matt 12:46-47
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

Matt 13:55-56
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?

John 2:12
After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples.

John 7:3
Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea.
John 7:5
For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
John 7:10
However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also.

Rom 3:4
Let God be true, and every man a liar.

to begin: as examples, Mark uses the term "adelphos" to refer to step-brothers, John mentions "adelphi/sister" both named Mary. Neither the typical Hellenistic Greek use of the term, nor the LXX (translation of Hebraic concepts into Greek) was restricted to "of the same physical mother". The restrictive terminology for parentage was "the mother of".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Again, there is and never has been a Dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" or "Jesus Had No Sibs."

The dogma under review is not about sibs, it's about sex. The dogma is that Mary NEVER Had Sex.


Unless one wants to biologically prove that it is impossible to have a single instance of marital intimacy without a child resulting that is mentioned in the Bible, then it's MOOT to argue that because it cannot be proven that He had sibs, therefore Mary could not have had sex. It's more than moot, it's silly.

Now, of course, IF it can be proven that Mary had other children, that would make the dogma heretical. But as has been shown repeatedly, such cannot be PROVEN (I think it has been shown to be altogether likely, but dogma isn't based on likely). But then there are only 2-3 denominations that have a dogma about how often Mary had sex. All others regard it either as moot (perhaps even none of our business) or simply an issue where Scripture is not sufficiently clear to be dogmatic.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; I think "rather" has been discussed before ... further, yes, Mary did "hear the word of God and keep it".

Yes, we did discuss it. You seem to still be selective in your observation & memory,... it isn't just "Yeah, rather...", it's "But He said, rather" He takes exception... He corrects. He doesn't just add to the comment, Thekla."But" makes that as entirely obvious as "rather" does.
He actualy redirects our attention to the spiritual reality of obediance away from the paps & womb part as if it is a mistake to do so.
And "rather" denotes a distinction from, not an addition to;
Merriam-Webster:
1 : with better reason or more propriety : more properly <this you should pity rather than despise — Shakespeare>
2 : more readily or willingly : preferably <I'd rather not go> <would rather read than watch television> —often used interjectionally to express affirmation
3 : more correctly speaking <my father, or rather my stepfather>
4 : to the contrary : instead <was no better but rather grew worse — Mark 5:26 (Revised Standard Version)>
Mr 5:26- And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,

But I don't understand how that 'necessitates' her not being physically a virgin, as well.

By itself, it doesn't.

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 ?

Does it?

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" ?

Because the attempt was dishonest. It presented itself as the solution to my supposed ignorance of the spiritual dimension of virginity, but it has no
explicit reason other than subjective Eastern aesthetics for the claim of perpetuity. It "seems" right. It "resonates" with the East gate of the temple not being used. And then the literalization begins & the focus returns to her womb if not her paps. Nobody is physicaly allowed in where the significance is supposed to be spiritual.

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" ?

That is a misrepresentation of what I actualy said. If you bother to quote me, I will bother to explain.

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 ?

What said person? I said "nicolaitane" NOT "Nicolataine"
You are veiling your argument with my interpretation of "nicolaitane" with you're re-spelling in your misquoting. Bad girl! lol

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".

You're getting distracted. That she wasn't a whole person was never the issue. The issue what her blessing was. The woman who spoke was focusing on the physical. Jesus corrected her focus to the spiritual.

Why the persistent refocus in this and other threads on only her physical virginity, then ?

Becuse that is the problem with & source of, that dogma.

How does His statement deny her spiritual and physical virginity ?

Does it? You'd have to tell me. I don't think it does.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, we did discuss it. You seem to still be selective in your observation & memory,... it isn't just "Yeah, rather...", it's "But He said, rather" He takes exception... He corrects. He doesn't just add to the comment, Thekla."But" makes that as entirely obvious as "rather" does.
He actualy redirects our attention to the spiritual reality of obediance away from the paps & womb part as if it is a mistake to do so.
And "rather" denotes a distinction from, not an addition to;
Merriam-Webster:
1 : with better reason or more propriety : more properly <this you should pity rather than despise &#8212; Shakespeare>
2 : more readily or willingly : preferably <I'd rather not go> <would rather read than watch television> &#8212;often used interjectionally to express affirmation
3 : more correctly speaking <my father, or rather my stepfather>
4 : to the contrary : instead <was no better but rather grew worse &#8212; Mark 5:26 (Revised Standard Version)>
Mr 5:26- And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,

the earlier conversation also relied on the Greek terminology, and the British usage of "rather" as "indeed/of course/yes) (I used Lucy's response to Mr. Tumnus in -iirc- ch 2 of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as an example of British usage of "rather" as an affirmative).

The word menoun (see, for example, Plato: Thaeatetus 158d.) is an affirmative.
The source manuscripts may vary, and lexicons can vary (this often based on 'assumption'; Thayer, for example, cites no ancient texts in defining adelphos, yet gives numerous ancient secular citations for other terms.)
The translation "ye, rather" can indeed mean "yes". I agree, Christ turns the thinking beyond the physical.

By itself, it doesn't.

Then, perhaps further explanation could be given.

Does it?

I was responding to your evidence; I do not find it conclusive, thats all.

Because the attempt was dishonest. It presented itself as the solution to my supposed ignorance of the spiritual dimension of virginity, but it has no
explicit reason other than subjective Eastern aesthetics for the claim of perpetuity. It "seems" right. It "resonates" with the East gate of the temple not being used. And then the literalization begins & the focus returns to her womb if not her paps. Nobody is physicaly allowed in where the significance is supposed to be spiritual.

So you know with certainty that the motivation was "dishonesty" ?
Then of course, there is no need to engage in discussion at all.

That is a misrepresentation of what I actualy said. If you bother to quote me, I will bother to explain.

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.

What said person? I said "nicolaitane" NOT "Nicolataine"
You are veiling your argument with my interpretation of "nicolaitane" with you're re-spelling in your misquoting. Bad girl! lol

Ok the teaching of Nikolaos is what I assume you are referring to ... I'll leave the explanation to you (if its wasn't clear, I'm not clear on what you're getting at - hence my observation that there was an absence of historical explanation for what the teaching was).

You're getting distracted. That she wasn't a whole person was never the issue. The issue what her blessing was. The woman who spoke was focusing on the physical. Jesus corrected her focus to the spiritual.

The wholeness of a person is distraction ? OK. try typing with your "spiritual"
But I don't understand what you're trying to get at,
or how this is related ...

Becuse that is the problem with & source of, that dogma.

I don't know what you know about the teaching or its significance, etc.

Does it? You'd have to tell me. I don't think it does.

I don't think it does, so I wonder about its use per the matter at hand.

 

[Thekla]

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.

I must admit, I find this statement offensive. It seems to engage in "analyze you" practice without considering the actual person involved, and resorts to a rather cursory understanding of the historical and theological dimensions of the issue.

Also, the application of the term "hysterical" (to females) has historically been a typical form of bias and attempt to minimize the personhood and credibility of the person to whom it is applied. Its use is often a form of patriarchal authoritarianism.

( As a side note, in the book Perspectives on Hysteria, P. Slavney MD, the author notes that despite extensive overlap in symptomology, the term "hysteria" is applied to women for what in men is typically called "narcissism".)

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; the earlier conversation also relied on the Greek terminology, and the British usage of "rather" as "indeed/of course/yes) (I used Lucy's response to Mr. Tumnus in -iirc- ch 2 of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as an example of British usage of "rather" as an affirmative).
Jesus wasn't British.

The word menoun (see, for example, Plato: Thaeatetus 158d.) is an affirmative.
The source manuscripts may vary, and lexicons can vary (this often based on 'assumption'; Thayer, for example, cites no ancient texts in defining adelphos, yet gives numerous ancient secular citations for other terms.)
The translation "ye, rather" can indeed mean "yes". I agree, Christ turns the thinking beyond the physical.
Then, perhaps further explanation could be given.

It could, it has.

I was responding to your evidence; I do not find it conclusive, thats all.

That was a pretty wild response.

So you know with certainty that the motivation was "dishonesty" ?

It is my opinion that I'm certain of.

Then of course, there is no need to engage in discussion at all.

Sorry you feel that way, but ok, fine.
The hysteria was not in the "assignment of the effort to engage in discussion of the spiritual aspects of virginity" it was in the style of expression during that discussion.
You said:"...and assignment of the effort to engage in discussion of the spiritual aspects of virginity to the motivation of "defensive and hysterical" behavior." Hysteria is not the motive. It is the state achieved trying to defend the indefensible.

Ok the teaching of Nikolaos is what I assume you are referring to ... I'll leave the explanation to you (if its wasn't clear, I'm not clear on what you're getting at - hence my observation that there was an absence of historical explanation for what the teaching was).

Right. Your assumption was wrong. It is my opinion 'nicolaitane" needs to be transliterated to fit the proper context. (ie., nico=conqueror + laitane(laity)=the people (of the congregation).

The wholeness of a person is distraction ? OK.

Yes, because it isn't what's at issue. The issue is the wrongness of emphasizing the physical - of trying to insist that the spiritual truth of her perpetual spiritual virginity be a literal (physical) fact.

try typing with your "spiritual"

I do. I'm disappointed you haven't noticed.

But I don't understand what you're trying to get at,
or how this is related ...

There is an ecclesiasticaly political dimension, to the dogma of perpetual physical virginity.

I don't know what you know about the teaching or its significance, etc.

Then we're even. I don't know what you know about it, or its significance, either.

How does His statement deny her spiritual and physical virginity

?
Does it? You'd have to tell me. I don't think it does.

I don't think it does, so I wonder about its use per the matter at hand.

I'm not trying to deny her spirituality. I don't need to to make my point. I used that passage because it illustrates Jesus correcting the emphasis that her blessing was a physical fact, to the spiritual dimension of that blessing - her hearing & obeying God. Trying to assert that she remained physicaly virgin after bearing Jesus is just religious affectation. It mocks the importance of the spiritual truth & reality.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; I must admit, I find this statement offensive.

I wish to offend untruths, not the people who hold them.

It seems to engage in "analyze you" practice without considering the actual person involved, and resorts to a rather cursory understanding of the historical and theological dimensions of the issue.

It doesn't matter what person. Human behavior can be analyzed. My considerations are there, they are simply different than yours.

Also, the application of the term "hysterical" (to females) has historically been a typical form of bias and attempt to minimize the personhood and credibility of the person to whom it is applied. Its use is often a form of patriarchal authoritarianism.

You're right, & I'm aware of that. I wasn't singling any one person out.
You & I were not the only persons in the discussion at the point.
I occaisionaly get hysterical myself. Sorry if I've been presenting myself as super-human.

( As a side note, in the book Perspectives on Hysteria, P. Slavney MD, the author notes that despite extensive overlap in symptomology, the term "hysteria" is applied to women for what in men is typically called "narcissism".)

Interesting.

 

[Thekla]

quote=Thekla; the earlier conversation also relied on the Greek terminology, and the British usage of "rather" as "indeed/of course/yes) (I used Lucy's response to Mr. Tumnus in -iirc- ch 2 of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as an example of British usage of "rather" as an affirmative).
Jesus wasn't British.


It could, it has.

Would've been curious if He was
But, iirc, the translation as "rather" was initially used in the KJV, and has been carried through in subsequent translations despite the 'growing' vagueness of the term. Its use in the KJV does not denote 'instead', though the term "rather" has come to mean more recently and in US usage a sort of hedge -- "instead".
Returning to the Greek, and the Hellenistic use of the term indicates blessedness on both counts: as mother and as one who "hears the word of God and keeps it". Clearly, her blessedness as mother arises directly from her hearing the word of God and assenting.

That was a pretty wild response.

not sure why

It is my opinion that I'm certain of.

o.k. but its a big charge to make ...

Sorry you feel that way, but ok, fine.
The hysteria was not in the "assignment of the effort to engage in discussion of the spiritual aspects of virginity" it was in the style of expression during that discussion.
You said:"...and assignment of the effort to engage in discussion of the spiritual aspects of virginity to the motivation of "defensive and hysterical" behavior." Hysteria is not the motive. It is the state achieved trying to defend the indefensible.

So, the only possible cause for the outcome is the "indefensibility" of the position ?
Frankly, thats a ridiculous assertion

Right. Your assumption was wrong. It is my opinion 'nicolaitane" needs to be transliterated to fit the proper context. (ie., nico=conqueror + laitane(laity)=the people (of the congregation).

Firstly, we've discussed the meaning of the name before; its not quite as you say. Secondly, most Greek names have "meanings" in the NT. Does this mean that all the Greek names in the NT with meanings are not about persons ?

Yes, because it isn't what's at issue. The issue is the wrongness of emphasizing the physical - of trying to insist that the spiritual truth of her perpetual spiritual virginity be a literal (physical) fact.

Why is your opinion not an imagining when mine is ? Why is your "biblically unsupported position" automatically superior to my "biblically unsupported position" ?

Perhaps then, it would be acceptable to teach that John the Baptist was sexually active - after all, his spiritual virginity was all that was needed.

What this skips, however, is that these were people with historical lives lived out in a particular way.

There is an ecclesiasticaly political dimension, to the dogma of perpetual physical virginity.

I think a fuller explanation is in order.

I'm not trying to deny her spirituality. I don't need to to make my point. I used that passage because it illustrates Jesus correcting the emphasis that her blessing was a physical fact, to the spiritual dimension of that blessing - her hearing & obeying God. Trying to assert that she remained physicaly virgin after bearing Jesus is just religious affectation. It mocks the importance of the spiritual truth & reality.

Correcting ? or does he indicate source ? The latter is supported by the affirmative reading of "rather". As far as I'm concerned, her physical virginity is a fact -- just as the physical virginity of St. Paraskeve, St. Catherine, etc is a physical fact. And their spiritual disposition is also fact.
Their virginity in both dimensions is not a distortion. Nor of John the Baptist. Nor of Elias. Nor of countless others.

Why is physical virginity so threatening to people ?

 

[Thekla]

I wish to offend untruths, not the people who hold them.

how can you offend an idea

It doesn't matter what person. Human behavior can be analyzed. My considerations are there, they are simply different than yours.

ok

You're right, & I'm aware of that. I wasn't singling any one person out.
You & I were not the only persons in the discussion at the point.
I occaisionaly get hysterical myself. Sorry if I've been presenting myself as super-human.

Just curious terminology to use given its history and when criticizing what you perceive as "authoritarian" ...

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; how can you offend an idea

Figuratively.

Just curious terminology to use given its history and when criticizing what you perceive as "authoritarian" ...

What I perceive as authoritarian is the practice of trusting the veracity of information based on it's origin above its congruency with the larger body of truth.

 

[Thekla]

Figuratively.

What I perceive as authoritarian is the practice of trusting the veracity of information based on it's origin above its congruency with the larger body of truth.

Then you'll need to support your position conclusively using the Bible and, again, historical, linguistic and theological analysis.

Included in this, will be the reason Christ came in the flesh instead of sending an angel, or another Moses, or some other way to promote an "ideology".

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; Then you'll need to support your position conclusively using the Bible and, again, historical, linguistic and theological analysis.

No problem.

Included in this, will be the reason Christ came in the flesh instead of sending an angel, or another Moses, or some other way to promote an "ideology".

Heck, that's an easy one. He was the only one able to pay the required price of mankind's redemption.

 

[Thekla]

No problem.


Heck, that's an easy one. He was the only one able to pay the required price of mankind's redemption.

I don't get your answer, quite; do you mean to say that the only reason for the Incarnation of Christ was for the purpose of a "flesh-price" of sorts ?

 

[Kristos]

No problem.


Heck, that's an easy one. He was the only one able to pay the required price of mankind's redemption.

Whoa...pay? Pay who? Who set the price? That sounds a little crazy

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah - PV of Mary.

I think we established already that one cannot honestly come to the conclusion that Mary had other children or had sex based on the Bible alone. So, that's that.

For those who admit that part of the their Faith is Tradition, there is more to draw on. But if you are still in denial, then you pretty have to stick to that.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why is physical virginity so threatening to people ?

Why is the issue of how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born SO critically important to some people? To make the issue one of DOGMA?


Remember, my friend, there is no denomination on the planet that teaches that Mary and Joseph DID have sex - 5000 times, 500 times, 50 times, 5 times or even once. Of the 35,000 denominations that some Catholics insists exist, only 3 have ANY dogma on their sex lives after Jesus was born. And none of them are Protestant. So, it seems to ME anyway, the GREAT interest in this topic, the DOGMATIC insistence about this issue of how often they had sex (if at all) after Jesus was born is a non- Protestant one. It's a CC, EO, OO one.

I don't see this as a question of "why is the loving, mutual, sharing of intimacies in marriage SO threatening" for anyone. I see it as a question of it as why it is so offensive to some - so much so as to state as a matter of highest importance that MARY at least "would never do THAT!" And, in a more general sense, why does anyone care how often they did it? Yes, it matters before Jesus was born for two reasons: A prophecy clearly stated that the BIBLE says was fulfilled, and because it helps support the divine nature of Jesus and moral integrity of His Mother. But, for the Bible, that issue ends with the birth of Jesus. Neither of those points has anything whatsoever to do with anything after the birth of Jesus - UNLESS one argues that Mary had other children BY THE HOLY SPIRIT (a claim never made by anyone) OR if there's something inherently offensive, sinful, "dirty" and "defiling" FOR THE WIFE in the issue of the loving, mutual sharing of intimacies in marriage.

It's a puzzling DOGMA. First of all, that it IS dogma. Secondly, why THIS issue is so amazingly important, such an extreme obsession.


I do not - for a second - deny that this is POSSIBLE. But it's also POSSIBLE that there are 6 billion furry brown creatures living on the Moon of Endor - it doesn't make it DOGMA that it's TRUE. And I do not - for a second - deny that by the 4th century, this became a nearly universal view. It IS "Tradition" is the best sense of that term - and as such, I have no issues with those who choose to accept it BECAUSE it is Tradition (leaving it at that). AND, I do not deny that there is a wonderful, beautiful and totally good spirituality around Our Lady that embraces this - and I find that not only acceptable but good (and a spirituality I largely share). NONE of that do I question at all, I rather affirm it. But I think my Protestant friends are trying to understand the DOGMA - not the spirituality surrounding it or even the Tradition status of it. I've been a part of these discussions for probably 10 years, and what typically is stated just adds to the puzzel for most Protestants.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think we established already that one cannot honestly come to the conclusion that Mary had sex based on the Bible alone. So, that's that.[/qutoe]


I agree, but then NO ONE has a dogma that she DID have sex. Thus, they are silent EXACTLY as Scripture is - respecting her privacy and the Sacrament of Marriage.

Three have a DOGMA that She did NOT have sex. Thus, the "burden of proof" is entirely and solely on the side of those 3 to show this is true - to the level of a dogmatic fact.



.

 

[katholikos]

I agree, but then NO ONE has a dogma that she DID have sex. Thus, they are silent EXACTLY as Scripture is - respecting her privacy and the Sacrament of Marriage.

Three have a DOGMA that She did NOT have sex. Thus, the "burden of proof" is entirely and solely on the side of those 3 to show this is true - to the level of a dogmatic fact.

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."

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't get your answer, quite; do you mean to say that the only reason for the Incarnation of Christ was for the purpose of a "flesh-price" of sorts ?

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.