Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Philothei]

Christ's dominance was in His submission to His Father's will, just like Mary's hyper-blessedness was in her submission to the Father's will.

There is no "dominance" anywhere... Christ's fullfilling the covenant with his incarnation was self willed or are you implying Christ had no will and the will of His father? Also Mary had free will she was born with it (something calvinistic theology would not agree on... and also due to Augustian predestination theory) no one is "
dominating" anyone here...Or you are advocating that neither was willfully accepting God's plan...and that is not the case... The Son fullfills what the Father wills out of His own accord in submitting ...to Him there is no "domination" at all or then we do not have a true God (the son) that acts freely but a Trinity of dominance a type of tyrany of the Father with subordinate the Holy Spirit and Christ. The three persons do have their own free will but they do act in unison. No one is subordinate to anyone...

Nothin' physical about it, excepting of course, it's expression. The non-physical motive was present previous to the physical act, but bears more significance as illustrated in Jesus' remark that the sin of lust is committed in the heart.
My paraphrase is "if one looks upon bacon & eggs with lust in his heart, he has already committed breakfast".
You get the idea.

So...the lust that forms in the mind is ...not trigered by the physical? if you sin with your mind (and is as sinful as in the flesh) you are as guilty as plain out sinning with your body? hmmm... well sorry it just it is not so.. Christ is saying this to make a point . On the other hand there is no man that has not sinned that outghta tell ya something .... guess what? We have all sinned.. at least in our mind.
The mere claim we are all sinners in our mind so what is the big deal with sinning with our bodies... is not the first time I see it mistrepreted... Christ is making the point of sinfullness in us humans. He does not mean to advocate that this is card "blance" ... or that the sin that is commited physically is not important or he would not have told the adulteress that your sins are forgiven... if he believed that ONLY the sins of the mind count.. That is kind of wrong logic I see in modern Chrisitanity too often.. The dis-connection between mind and body..The body sins the mind has to be kept out of it.. Nice what a joke indeed.. The mind participates as much as the body since the sin is conceptualized first in the mind and then expressed in physically... "dialogismos" has a lot with sinning... Christ cautions us that it is in the intellect where sin takes root and then the body follows... suit. We do not fall only by thought but by our very actions this is where the sinful thinking finds expression. And it is the actions that actually gets us in ultimate trouble not only our thoughts.... or everyone then should be on trial for murder, rape etc.. before we ever commit them...Christ was not saying that we are guilty but how we should guard our thoughts... How the concept of a sin enters first the mind.

 

[MamaZ]

Mans will is going to be overpowered soon by the very will and wrath of God. For the head of every man is Christ and the the head of woman is man and the head of Christ is God.. So we see the pecking order..

 

[Philothei]

No I do not.. The wrath of God you describe so vividly belongs in the Old Testament the old covenant idea and perception of God.. The christian God is the God of mercy and Glory.. God's creation, man, was created in His image and likness or he was not.. You cannot have God creating in his image and likeness and then again a robot.. It cannot be both.. God has free will or He does not? You decide since if He does so do we... It is a logical error to think man is predestined to be "destroyed" as creation then has no way of being saved... and those who perish do so cause God means harm? God is all love see the fallacy there? God does not intent for us to get lost...He does not predestine we chose to move away from God and doing so we are lost forever... Both Adam and Eve were creation of God the "pecking" order you talk about is not so.. He blessed us both and both they fell... Adam and Eve are "omoplevroi" sharing the same side and walk side by side so the creation order bears no marks on their origin. Eve was created "out of Adam's side" not from Adam. Adam did not create God did create her of the same substance as Adam... God's creation was equal. He formed Eve the same way He formed Adam.

 

[Thekla]

That makes the whole PV idea counter-intuitive. Christ's dominance was in His submission to His Father's will, just like Mary's hyper-blessedness was in her submission to the Father's will.
Nothin' physical about it, excepting of course, it's expression. The non-physical motive was present previous to the physical act, but bears more significance as illustrated in Jesus' remark that the sin of lust is committed in the heart.
My paraphrase is "if one looks upon bacon & eggs with lust in his heart, he has already committed breakfast".
You get the idea.
I think East & West meet in you & me agreeing the spiritual dimension, the eternal dimension, is the "greater" reality where significance is grasped with greater speed, depth & clarity I imagine. It's as if we've been made to run this gauntlet with a stone tied to one ankle. Some drag it. Some pick it up & run with it.

This I understand

but I don't follow the rest, sorry ...

and, to return, the maintenance of Mary's virginity in birth - as I explained - makes sense to me. But I don't understand how this 'phenomenon' can be transferred to her relationship with Joseph

 

[MamaZ]

No I do not.. The wrath of God you describe so vividly belongs in the Old Testament the old covenant idea and perception of God.. The christian God is the God of mercy and Glory.. God's creation, man, was created in His image and likness or he was not.. You cannot have God creating in his image and likeness and then again a robot.. It cannot be both.. God has free will or He does not? You decide since if He does so do we... It is a logical error to think man is predestined to be "destroyed" as creation then has no way of being saved... and those who perish do so cause God means harm? God is all love see the fallacy there? God does not intent for us to get lost...He does not predestine we chose to move away from God and doing so we are lost forever... Both Adam and Eve were creation of God the "pecking" order you talk about is not so.. He blessed us both and both they fell... Adam and Eve are "omoplevroi" sharing the same side and walk side by side so the creation order bears no marks on their origin. Eve was created "out of Adam's side" not from Adam. Adam did not create God did create her of the same substance as Adam... God's creation was equal. He formed Eve the same way He formed Adam.

The God of the OT is the same God of Christianity. He changes not. For those in the body of Christ have the very God of Isreal as their Father. Scripture shows us what truth is not mens rules for what they believe is fair and just according to their fallable human minds..

 

[MamaZ]

Yes Adam and Eve were created by God for different roles. Man being the head and woman being the help meet for man.. It is a very simple reading. This does not mean that Men dominate woman. This means that there is a Godly order.. God being the Head of Christ, Christ being the head of man, Man being the head of woman.. Very simple..

 

[Philothei]

This is not the right thread for this....The hierarchical order you describe is not in that sequence as the Father always "arhe" He is the begnning of the God head in order but not in "leadership" Holy Trinity's order is not of subordination... like the west teaches but of equality the Father is the "palaios" the Old of the times but nevertheless he does not impose his will on the holy spirit or the son.. that doctrine of subordination you just exlained is a product of the westen theology....end of parenthesis here as this thread is for the Ever Virginity..

 

[Thekla]

to extend the "parenthesis"

Eve is called, as help-meet, the complement/completion of Adam. Created out of his side, she is beside Adam, not under/behind. (This does not abrogate the 'roles' of Adam and Eve, however.)

The hierarchical ordering of Trinity is residual Platonism (who speculated trinity in this manner), not Christian. The Trinity exists in love (see Paul's teaching on love for a descriptive on love - it is not an hierarchical description).

 

[Rick Otto]

the maintenance of Mary's virginity in birth - as I explained - makes sense to me. But I don't understand how this 'phenomenon' can be transferred to her relationship with Joseph

How can it not? She's the Perpetual Virgin, and he is her husband. It is 'transferred' by fact of celebacy if not perpetuated thru consummation the same as it was thru birth. What doesn't make sense to me is why it has anything to do with Christianity, salvation, morality, faith,... anything! The only things I see it being good for are bad things and I can't think of a way of listing those without getting reported... I know it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to report me. lol

 

[Rick Otto]

to extend the "parenthesis"

Eve is called, as help-meet, the complement/completion of Adam. Created out of his side, she is beside Adam, not under/behind. (This does not abrogate the 'roles' of Adam and Eve, however.)

The hierarchical ordering of Trinity is residual Platonism (who speculated trinity in this manner), not Christian. The Trinity exists in love (see Paul's teaching on love for a descriptive on love - it is not an hierarchical description).

Yeah, that dang Residual Platonism.
I think I read in "Hints from Heloise" that you can soak it in Stoicism & then scrub it out with some Arostotilianism.

 

[Philothei]

The fact that Theotokos remained virgin is not an after thought ... oh... she was the "theotokos" she who bear God and thus God was incarnated through her thus ... she "remained" virgin... It is more like Theotokos was the mother of God incarnated thus she remained virgin out of her "own choice" to do so... Naturally she had made the choice... to do so. Question is could she have done otherwise? The answer to that would be no. Why? Because to be the Mother of God she would not even think to do otherwise. The answer would be because she experienced the incarnation "differently" than me and you who were not so tightly involved... with it as His mother. To say contrary would be to reduce the Mother of God as another woman of any other human thus just a "vessel" and that she was not... or was she???

 

[Thekla]

Yeah, that dang Residual Platonism.
I think I read in "Hints from Heloise" that you can soak it in Stoicism & then scrub it out with some Arostotilianism.

it seems the west has already tried that method, and it doesn't work

 

[Thekla]

How can it not? She's the Perpetual Virgin, and he is her husband. It is 'transferred' by fact of celebacy if not perpetuated thru consummation the same as it was thru birth. What doesn't make sense to me is why it has anything to do with Christianity, salvation, morality, faith,... anything! The only things I see it being good for are bad things and I can't think of a way of listing those without getting reported... I know it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to report me. lol

If I understand you, in the bold phrase above, you mean she maintained PV by celibacy - which I would agree with.

As for its impact on our personal salvation, it is not central (but is an iteration on the identity of Christ evidenced in the life of His mother).

Per the last point, perhaps this is a "view from a particular mileu"; unloading the mileu from the terminology or changing the perspective may change the conclusion.

 

[Danya]

Wow!

Historical PROOF if I've ever seen it!!!

So, all the siblings of Jesus would have been died by 100 AD, if such ever existed. So, OF COURSE, someone living in the year 430 would be an absolutely credible witness. I wonder, my unseparated brother, if someone posted in the year 2105 that George Washington had a pet rabbit, 330 years after George and any rabbit known to him would be dead, would that be credible historic evidence to you? You'd not ask, "How does this person know George had a pet rabbit?"

To believe with such evidence is sad, little and late ecfs statements.


But rather to believe a non biblical assumption, instead believe much of the OT is not literal.

When do catholics start believing anything in the bible as fact"
No verse necessary, a chapter will do just fine.
Thanks

 

[Musa80]

To believe with such evidence is sad, little and late ecfs statements.


But rather to believe a non biblical assumption, instead believe much of the OT is not literal.

When do catholics start believing anything in the bible as fact"
No verse necessary, a chapter will do just fine.
Thanks

Painting with a broad brush there aren't you? Who said all catholics believe much of the OT to be non-literal?

 

[Danya]

nm

 

[Philothei]

To believe with such evidence is sad, little and late ecfs statements.


But rather to believe a non biblical assumption, instead believe much of the OT is not literal.

When do catholics start believing anything in the bible as fact"
No verse necessary, a chapter will do just fine.
Thanks

since EV cannot be proven but neither can it be disproven through the Bible... your point is moot. That is to say that the EO and the RC believing in EV is an opinion trusting in the Tradition while there is non on the others side...

At least we have the fathers that are not "few" BTW but the 'tradition" of doubting the EV is unfortunately only 200-400 years old... so where does the scale tip?

 

[Rick Otto]

it seems the west has already tried that method, and it doesn't work

Hey,hey,hey now, you had to borrow the room to say that!
At whatever moral cost to the nation, Bill Clinton managed to both balance the budget & not get thrown out of office.
Now we have Obama ... don't stop holding your breath this year!

 

[Rick Otto]

... the 'tradition" of doubting the EV is unfortunately only 200-400 years old... so where does the scale tip?

You've been wrong longer than we've been right?

 

[Rick Otto]

As for its impact on our personal salvation, it is not central (but is an iteration on the identity of Christ evidenced in the life of His mother).

Per the last point, perhaps this is a "view from a particular mileu"; unloading the mileu from the terminology or changing the perspective may change the conclusion.

Oh no,... in fact I can totaly accept that it as stated, and can see clearly how it could be true, but I can see how His having siblings would resonate with His desire to be one of us and share our experience including the temptations, especialy those experienced between siblings.
Which is beside the point for me as well when I put in perspective of His response to the loud woman who was proclaiming the blessednes of Mary's paps & womb. Jesus didn't deny they were blessed, rather He redirected the conversational emphasis to her hearing & obeying God.
We should probably follow suit & forget about the blessedness of Mary's physical attributes and give that veneration to her hearing & obeying instead.
That is, if I were Pope.