Something About Mary (2)

[SolomonVII]

The procedure to deliver a baby, hymen intact, has not yet been developed, even in this time.

 

[sculleywr]

The procedure to deliver a baby, hymen intact, has not yet been developed, even in this time.

the procedure to deliver a baby by C-section wasn't around either, which seems to be the other assertion.

Like I said, there would have been a healing, which was evidenced by the intact hymen. The fact that the midwife said "a virgin has GIVEN BIRTH" instead of "a virgin's child appeared" would also point to a physical normal birth

 

[SolomonVII]

the procedure to deliver a baby by C-section wasn't around either, which seems to be the other assertion.

Like I said, there would have been a healing, which was evidenced by the intact hymen. The fact that the midwife said "a virgin has GIVEN BIRTH" instead of "a virgin's child appeared" would also point to a physical normal birth

There has been no assertion of C-section. East gate, birth from the side, is based in religious symbology and myth, but not science.

As said before, healing implies injury, and therefore not perpetual virginity, when virginity is interpreted as physical.

The Ceasarian procedure, linked to Julius Ceasar, definitely was around then, but this is not what the theology of side birth is about.

 

[Standing Up]

Because this makes no sense given the contractions. Coming out the side would only be possible by Cesarean section, a procedure which had not been developed at the time. Besides that, both would require miraculous healing, or else Mary had the strongest physical endurance known to womankind. Have you ever seen a woman after her stomach has been opened in C-Section? She isn't doing anything besides walking around. The PoJ doesn't mention a side, but it does mention contractions, and the presence of a midwife seals the deal for a "normal" birth (as normal as a teenage virgin giving birth gets).

There were no contractions in PoJ. All PoJ says is pressed against. Given Ambrose, etc, they thought it pressed against her side (east gate). Not contractions at all. And again, taken in context at that time, those of the ever-virgin myth didn't even consider she had contractions.

BTW, the midwife idea is why Aquinas totally rejected PoJ. Scripture mentions NO midwife. Mary did it all. Beware, you may be treading on people's Mariology with your contraction and midwife interpretation

 

[Standing Up]

.

 

[sculleywr]

There were no contractions in PoJ. All PoJ says is pressed against. Given Ambrose, etc, they thought it pressed against her side (east gate). Not contractions at all. And again, taken in context at that time, those of the ever-virgin myth didn't even consider she had contractions.

BTW, the midwife idea is why Aquinas totally rejected PoJ. Scripture mentions NO midwife. Mary did it all. Beware, you may be treading on people's Mariology with your contraction and midwife interpretation

-_- And what exact medical knowledge do you have which would say it was her side? What exactly would be pressing against her SIDE, when her FRONT is where the baby is? You know what's in the side? ovaries and kidneys. Not children. Given knowledge we have now, pressing the SIDE makes about as much sense as pressing against her forehead.

Also, Scripture doesn't say ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIRTH ITSELF! In Scripture, she goes in, and it says she gives birth. The only additional birth-related information in the PoJ is the "pressing to come out." Babies don't press against the side, so Mary would have thought them muscle spasms, not labor pains.

In other words, a "side birth" makes no sense. Please quit posing impossible theories.

 

[Standing Up]

-_- And what exact medical knowledge do you have which would say it was her side? What exactly would be pressing against her SIDE, when her FRONT is where the baby is? You know what's in the side? ovaries and kidneys. Not children. Given knowledge we have now, pressing the SIDE makes about as much sense as pressing against her forehead.

Also, Scripture doesn't say ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIRTH ITSELF! In Scripture, she goes in, and it says she gives birth. The only additional birth-related information in the PoJ is the "pressing to come out." Babies don't press against the side, so Mary would have thought them muscle spasms, not labor pains.

In other words, a "side birth" makes no sense. Please quit posing impossible theories.

Except that was the theory from PoJ. See your quote from Ambrose. Read Irenaeus. See John of Damascus. That IS what they believed. Or they believed scripture---born of water and blood, and tradition through Tertullian, etc. No one back then believed a normal birth and miraculous healing. It was either a normal birth with all that entails or without flux/afterbirth. All these things have been shown and quoted from the sources.

But again, we're just repeating ourselves.

 

[sculleywr]

Except that was the theory from PoJ. See your quote from Ambrose. Read Irenaeus. See John of Damascus. That IS what they believed. Or they believed scripture---born of water and blood, and tradition through Tertullian, etc.

One. I never said they were perfect. I was showing they believed in the PoJ. However, we NOW know a side birth was impossible. We also know that there were those who accepted the ever-virginity AND the normal birth (Athanasius and John Chrystostom, to name the heaviest hitters). I'm not saying it isn't a bold statement, I'm saying it's neither impossible, nor a contradiction of Scripture. You seem stuck on this either-or kick. Considering that Jesus is both-and in many cases (man and God, loving AND just), why should we be either-or?

Also, the PoJ itself doesn't say it was from the side.

 

[SolomonVII]

Side birth is not based in science, but in relgious symbology. It is no more impossible to pass through the side of a woman unimpeded than it is to pass through the maidenhead without loss of virginity.

The role that Irenaeus played in this has already been pointed out with Eve being born of the side of Adam, and now the new Adam being born of the side of the new Eve.

There is a certain degenerative aspect involved, when what was once meant to be seen through the eyes of spirit becomes seen as a literal event.

 

[Standing Up]

Side birth is not based in science, but in relgious symbology. It is no more impossible to pass through the side of a woman unimpeded than it is to pass through the maidenhead without loss of virginity.

The role that Irenaeus played in this has already been pointed out with Eve being born of the side of Adam, and now the new Adam being born of the side of the new Eve.

There is a certain degenerative aspect involved, when what was once meant to be seen through the eyes of spirit becomes seen as a literal event.

Irenaeus was a "dancer", doing his best to play both sides (Rome and Polycarp-from-apostles) on a number of issues.

He says, " But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin." And we all know Eve gave birth to children (plural).

So too he says of Mary, " And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve"

And so knowing too about the brothers of Christ.

He compares, " For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith."
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

He calls them both virgins, but knows they both gave birth. Elsewhere in his writings he seems to argue for the ever-virgin idea.

"Ignatius" too picks up the birth-from-Mary's-side idea.

For the body of Adam was made out of the four elements, and that of Eve out of the side of Adam. And, indeed, the altogether peculiar birth of the Lord was of a virgin alone.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xvi.iv.html

 

[sculleywr]

Irenaeus was a "dancer", doing his best to play both sides (Rome and Polycarp-from-apostles) on a number of issues.

He says, " But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin." And we all know Eve gave birth to children (plural).

So too he says of Mary, " And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve"

And so knowing too about the brothers of Christ.

He compares, " For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith."
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

He calls them both virgins, but knows they both gave birth. Elsewhere in his writings he seems to argue for the ever-virgin idea.

"Ignatius" too picks up the birth-from-Mary's-side idea.

For the body of Adam was made out of the four elements, and that of Eve out of the side of Adam. And, indeed, the altogether peculiar birth of the Lord was of a virgin alone.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

"as yet" does not mean it happened after. It means that at the time of the birth, she was still a virgin.

I have not broken a bone in my arm as yet. Does that mean I will never break an arm bone? No.

Secondly, the comparison of Mary to Eve with a side-birth would be saying she was, herself, born from the side, as she is portrayed as the parallel to Eve. It would break the parallelism to say that Christ was born from her side.

 

[Standing Up]

Unless there's something new, I think the thread has run its course.