Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually Clement writes, "The Scriptures of the Lord are like that to us.
They gave birth to the truth, but they remain virgin in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth." (p. 114, linked below)
The One Who Knows God - Clement of Alexandria - Google Books
He is making a comparison, but is not calling the Scriptures "the Virgin". (He does not even use the term virgin as an appellation for Scripture - he uses a straight comparative.)
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin,
ccel
... in the childbearing state ... but she was not. For (because) after the birth, found to still be a virgin.
paraphrased thekla-source
The PoJ states the child appears (no birth per se), which means to them Mary was still in the childbearing (puerperal) state. They say this because upon inspection she was still found to be a virgin. Clement denies this; she was not; she didn't remain a virgin. Jesus' birth was "normal". Water, birth, placenta.
PoJ--the child appears. No normal delivery. Mary remains as before.
Clement---normal birth.
St Paul---born of a woman. The virgin conceived.
Definition of PUERPERAL
: of, relating to, or occurring during childbirth or the period immediately following <puerperal infection> <puerperal depression>
Did you notice the note at the bottom of page 114? It says the same thing I'm saying.
"But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not."But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not.
This is futile. And love how you just haaaaad to throw the word 'water' in there. Like you're trying one of those subliminal message thingy's.The PoJ states the child appears (no birth per se), which means to them Mary was still in the childbearing (puerperal) state. They say this because upon inspection she was still found to be a virgin. Clement denies this; she was not; she didn't remain a virgin. Jesus' birth was "normal". Water, birth, placenta.
Yes, I would like that word or it could be a mere opinion from that particular ECF. You're stating it definitely was a Tradition. Now show me where they thought this.Eh? The word tradition has to be there? You like Jerome, is the word tradition in there?
You cannot have puerperal fever (which killed many woman) unless you are birthing or have recently given birth (puerperal typically covers the period of birth through 12 weeks post partum).
And why did some say (PoJ) she was not in that state? What specifically does puerperal indicate has happened?
"But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not."
There is one and only one context here. That this puerperal state is dealing with the birth of Her Child. Not Her virginity afterward.
"For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin."
A continuation of that one and only context from His first sentence hence why it begins with: "For some say"
This is futile. And love how you just haaaaad to throw the word 'water' in there. Like you're trying one of those subliminal message thingy's.
Yes, I would like that word or it could be a mere opinion from that particular ECF. You're stating it definitely was a Tradition. Now show me where they thought this.
No need if that's how you see it. I assumed you were trying to prove that these biological sons of Mary were according to the CFs handed down through the Church.I'll get it together for you.
I'm going to go through this as delicately as possible.
The PoJ says this about Jesus' birth:
2 And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.
There was no normal vaginal birth. There were two consequences. One Mary evidently remained a virgin. Two she remained in the puerperal state. This does relate to birth, but specifically to things remaining in the uterous after birth.
Now Clement of Alexandria who is commenting on that "appearance", not normal birth:
"But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. "
SHE WAS NOT in the puerperal state. She gave birth normally. The sign of virginity is gone. Out came water, baby, placenta, all of it. Mary wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes. She was healthy; there was no delayed uterine infection-puerperal state. (The PoJ says there was a midwife in contradiction to Scripture.)
'For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.'
For/because/the reason some say she was in the puerperal state is some (PoJ) say after she brought forth, she was found to be a virgin. The puerperal state would be caused by that stuff remaining.
That's the reason. Clement of Alexandria denies it. She gave birth normally and wrapped the Child herself.
With that in mind, he then says instead,
"Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin,"
That's the continuing virgin. Not Mary. It's the My Word is life, but I digress.
Great post
Except it missed everything in the post it replied to, including the challenge from ECFs to show someone else being called Son of Mary.
Most importantly it missed the contradiction in the OP.
The OP uses Jerome as a source of authority on one thing, then mocks him over a so-called 'cousin theory'
In otherwords Jerome is used only selectively.
Let one who is without error cast the first stoneExcept it missed everything in the post it replied to, including the challenge from ECFs to show someone else being called Son of Mary.
Most importantly it missed the contradiction in the OP.
The OP uses Jerome as a source of authority on one thing, then mocks him over a so-called 'cousin theory'
In otherwords Jerome is used only selectively.
So DID Jerome use texts that were known
to contain gross error, when preparing his
translation?
And if so, wouldnt this cause a huge problem
lol why is June 7th the day you're allowing yourself to speak to him again?Not speaking to you till June 7th still
lol why is June 7th the day you're allowing yourself to speak to him again?
lol the only thing I think you'd get from Fireinfolding on your birthday is one swing to the nose and judging from the size of her biceps in her avatar, she could do alot of damage boy.I'd be interested to know this too. It's too early for my birthday
lol the only thing I think you'd get from Fireinfolding on your birthday is one swing to the nose and judging from the size of her biceps in her avatar, she could do alot of damage boy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?