Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

Council of Chalcedon in 451. it was proposed then and radified on the next Nicaea council...II...

“Along with these synods, we also confess the two natures of the one who became incarnate for our sake from the God-bearer without blemish, Mary the ever-virgin…”13


http://www.btw3.com/classfiles/HT1/PerpetualVirginity.pdf

Then again UB you do not accept the councils ....ironically they are the very ones that put together the canon of the Bible...(?)....

As per belief in the decisions of the councils they were pretty much a done deal... That is not to say that doubt did not lark in the hearts of people influenced mostly by gnostic teachings... up to our times people do doubt many things... that are 'Tradition" even in EO countries. We are not 100% Orthodox by any means in our thinking anyhow... we all have our weaknesses to deal with...I do not think you will never meet an EO that for sure can claim to be 100% Orthodox all the time...UB

But when it comes to Theotokos virginity we are of one mind... dogma or not

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

He never answered either where we find in the Bible the event of ressurection to be actually eyewitnessed....

Where did I say that there were?
Where did I say that one had to be an eye witness to Mary 24/7 during her entirely life in order to testify that she was a perpetual virgin? I ONLY remarked that the reporter needs to be credible as one giving testimony.

What I asked for is SUBSTANTIATION to the highest level for a teaching of the highest leve. I specificly and repeatedly said I'd accept anything you'd accept form a Mormon or Protestant (ie denominational "Fathers", opinions of those agreeing with the opinion, etc.). Nor did I even limit it to Scripture, I repeatedly stated I'd welcome history, I even said I'd accept any 5 people from before the year 100 AD that specificly taught the Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN, all a MUCH LOWER "bar" of substantiation than Catholics accept (in fact, I've made the issue SO easy for you that Mormons would attain it for nearly everything the LDS teaches and claims - yet I'm pretty sure you'd reject their substantiation - even though you seem entirely unable to attain the same level, even for a DOGMA, a matter of highest certainty).




.

 

[Philothei]

leave mormons out of this... as they lack the historicity and the credibility to their church....

 

[Philothei]

It is impossible to find 5 people if you are not a specialized historian on Mariology and it can take decades for the rest of us the ECF are plenty to support it. We are the ones secure in our dogma since you are the one that IS NOT then the ball is in your court... Also you have to specify why you believe in the ressurection then if the actual event is not eyewitnessed in the Bible...

waiting....

 

[Uphill Battle]

assuming, of course, that both the teacher and the student had in mind the same numbers which the stated numerals express as sign.

don't needlessly complicate the matter.

this sounds, to me, like the failure of 'foreign policy' -- the standards of "proof" (which shades too close to a western 'mindset' ) are different; to ask of one what is not inherent to it is a bit of an unfair standard, and cannot produce an agreement (as in the example above, a different understanding of the value represented by the numeral will potentially lead to impasse).

in the example, I used mathmatics. Simple mathmatics at that. If someone has a different understanding of the value of the number 2... they are wrong. It's rather simple.

the introduction of the LDS as a parallel introduces the concept of "novel teachings" (to the Tradition minded, at least); as to the shape of the earth, it has been known to be 'spherical' for a very long time.

yet they use the same ruberic for their claim... and yes... I know that it's been known to be spherical for a long time. using the argument of "believed for a long time" you could argue both then, couldn't you! Both were beleived "for a long time."

this was against the parallel of novel teachings

hmmm.... perhaps the EV and such was novel in it's time. Consider the possiblility? (don't worry, I won't say anything when you ineveitably do not.)

where Biblical passages have been offered in this subforum, there is shown a difference in accepted exegesis between the two sides of the issue -- so likewise, one can just say - the substantiation is not valid because I disagree. This indicates that both sides operate withing a tradition, and that the traditions are different.

what passages? It isn't a matter of exegesis at all... when there isn't even a supporting passage to interpret! EV being one of them... no passage exists in the bible that even HINTS at ever virginity. How can you have difering exegesis on make believe words?

no, it indicates diffrence in what is considered "proof" in two different traditions.

I'll say. "because we say so" isn't proof... where I come from.

. We are the ones secure in our dogma since you are the one that IS NOT then the ball is in your court...

what does sincerity and security of belief proof? That you believe what you beleive. Hardly a compelling thought! The possiblilty exists (although I'm sure it's anathema to you to admit this premise) that you could be sincerely, and securly WRONG.

Also you have to specify why you believe in the ressurection then if the actual event is not eyewitnessed in the Bible...

waiting....

horse feathers.

eye witnesses saw him die.
eye witnesses saw him after he was dead, alive and well.

I know it's complex... but try and connect the dots.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

they lack the historicity and the credibility to their church....

So, historicity and credibility matter. I agree.


So, where is the historicity and credibility for Mary as a PERPETUAL VIRGIN? You've admitted you don't have a single person who taught this within Mary's lifetime, and yet the Mormons have hundreds of people who affirmed all the things about Joseph Smith within his lifetime. Seems like the LDS has far more historicity (well, anything is better than nothing) and since those many testimonies are all from people who were his personal friends, relatives and associates thus would be in a position to know, giving them some credibility (certainly more than one who would have no possible way of having any first hand information). Seems like you're admitting that the LDS is in a far, far better position for it's claims about Joseph Smith than you are about Mary.

Again, I'm not asking that Scripture specificly state such. I'm not asking for proof. I'm simply asking for reliable, credible evidential substantiation - to the level that you would accept from say a Presbyterian or a Mormon or any other. Friend, if I said that Pope Benedict converted to Lutheranism and was Confirmed Lutheran and this is a matter of highest certainty, I just have a hunch you'd want more than my secured feeling that it's correct. I'm not asking anything more from you than you'd ask of others as evidential substantiation for a fact of the highest certainty, a dogma. But you seem to be continuing the pages of diversions and evasions and near admissions that your hand is entirely empty.

And friend, your effort to get me to defend a position I don't have is fruitless and just a diversion and evasion. AGAIN, I don't have any dogma about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. I don't dogmatically insist that she did it 5 times per week or 3 times per week or 1000 times in her life or never once at all. I have no dogma on that. I don't even have a doctrine or even a pious opinion or even an opinion about that AT ALL. (Frankly, it's moot and none of my business). So your constant effort to get the focus off of the issue at hand is just using up space and, frankly, making it ever more evident that you have nothing. Sadly, IMHO, you are making Mormonism look amazingly credible by comparison.




.

 

[Thekla]

don't needlessly complicate the matter.
in the example, I used mathmatics. Simple mathmatics at that. If someone has a different understanding of the value of the number 2... they are wrong. It's rather simple.

I'm not trying to
There are a variety of numeration systems over areas and eras - we now use the Arabic in the west. I am trying to explain that we have a difference in understanding - that to some extent, the same numerals (words/signs) mean different numbers (meaning/value). So, our exegesis may overlap, but also contain differences which are valid within our respective traditions.

yet they use the same ruberic for their claim... and yes... I know that it's been known to be spherical for a long time. using the argument of "believed for a long time" you could argue both then, couldn't you! Both were beleived "for a long time."

hmmm.... perhaps the EV and such was novel in it's time. Consider the possiblility? (don't worry, I won't say anything when you ineveitably do not.)

The ex. of the LDS to my understanding brings to mind that many of their teachings are 1. new (recent) 2. novel (innovation/incorrect) and, though the LDS is historically recent, some of their teachings were already overturned by the Ecumenical Councils pre 8th century. Different mindsets (yours and mine) may have read the same example in different ways (same numerals/example for different numbers/meaning).

what passages? It isn't a matter of exegesis at all... when there isn't even a supporting passage to interpret! EV being one of them... no passage exists in the bible that even HINTS at ever virginity. How can you have difering exegesis on make believe words?

As before - a brief selective recap - the Proverbs passage I posted a few pp. back, the rare and particular language used by Luke re:Mary and its only other Biblical useage per the Ark of the Covenant (OT); the uncut Mountain; the gate through which the King entered that remains shut (Isaiah), etc. Perhaps not considered valid referents in some traditions, but considered valid referrents to ever-virginity in ours. Again, same numerals, different numbers.

I'll say. "because we say so" isn't proof... where I come from.

Nor in ours; but what does constitute proof in our tradition differs from yours. So this entire conversation becomes that our traditions are different.

what does sincerity and security of belief proof? That you believe what you beleive. Hardly a compelling thought! The possiblilty exists (although I'm sure it's anathema to you to admit this premise) that you could be sincerely, and securly WRONG.

You are more than welcome to believe our teachings are wrong as you will - thats fine. And I hope it is clear my position is apologetic/offensive ( I am trying to explain something, not attack or convince).

 

[katholikos]

...I've seen the list you guys have cobbled together before. It impresses me no more now, than it did then.

At least we have a list.

 

[Thekla]

There is no evidence that Mary's ever-virginity was neither taught or known in her lifetime; further, we consider the NT a record of revelation - not revelation itself - and also not an exhaustive record of revelation (as in John's statement, and the absence of the record of the oral teachings of Paul to which the epistles were follow-up of a spiritual father, etc.)

 

[Philothei]

know it's complex... but try and connect the dots.

Your Bible was written by men not all eyewitness... to the events...so what? how come you do not discect it?

Horses do not have feathers...

ECF were some eyewitness to the Apostles. And thus we believe the Bible to be valid through their witness... what do you have? A product of the Apostles hands.. who are fallable men...deal with it..

 

[Philothei]

CJ if you beleive so much that the Mormons are true in their "revelation" why you do not become Mormon?

 

[katholikos]

CJ if you beleive so much that the Mormons are true in their "revelation" why you do not become Mormon?

Boy, that would spice up the thread.

.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ if you beleive so much that the Mormons are true in their "revelation" why you do not become Mormon?

Just because they can substantiate their claims about Joseph Smith far better than you have done about these Marian DOGMAS doesn't mean that their position is correct, only that they do a better job of supporting them than you do yours (at least on this singular issue). They have hundreds of persons all that personally knew Joseph Smith that testify to the truth of the claims, you don't have even one who knew Mary who says anything about any of these DOGMAS. Does that make the LDS right? No. It just means they have a stronger substantiation.

Friend, if I posted that Pope Benedict renounced his vows and converted to Islam, and stated so as dogmatic truth, a statement of the highest certainty, I just have a hunch you'd want some substantiation for that. Something other than "But I'm sincere and secure in what I said" or "but I cannot be wrong so therefore I'm not." You reject the LDS claims about Joseph Smith even though their substantiation for those things far exceeds the substantiation I've been seeking from you regarding Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - and you've been evading for pages now. Friend, I'm asking far less from you than you obviously require of the Mormon and I suspect you'd want from me regrading Pope Benedict becoming a Muslim. FAR less. And yet....





.

 

[Philothei]

According to you then all cults from the beginning of Chsitianity and Gnostic beliefs are substantiated and accepted... thus why are you in a certain denomination and not another? If you see equally value in the their belieffs?

Or is it that the RC and EO are weaker carrying so many ECF wittnesses and writtings and millions of eyeswitnesses to miracles throughout the centuries and sainst and what have you... that you are not persuated... You are making such a straw man here my friend .... LOL...

All you need to do for the Virginity is to look into the ECF just like the ECF brought forth the Bible.. Denial is not a virtue...

 

[Uphill Battle]

The ex. of the LDS to my understanding brings to mind that many of their teachings are 1. new (recent) 2. novel (innovation/incorrect) and, though the LDS is historically recent, some of their teachings were already overturned by the Ecumenical Councils pre 8th century. Different mindsets (yours and mine) may have read the same example in different ways (same numerals/example for different numbers/meaning).

meh. The LDS are of little note to me. The point (that CJ was making, not I) is that they both claim the same thing.

As before - a brief selective recap - the Proverbs passage I posted a few pp. back, the rare and particular language used by Luke re:Mary and its only other Biblical useage per the Ark of the Covenant (OT); the uncut Mountain; the gate through which the King entered that remains shut (Isaiah), etc. Perhaps not considered valid referents in some traditions, but considered valid referrents to ever-virginity in ours. Again, same numerals, different numbers.

of course! When you already hold a teaching to be true, it's pretty easy to go back and "hijack" scripture to support it. It doesn't seem to matter one whit that none of those passages actually say anything at all regarding EV... it "looks ok" so therefore that is what it must mean!

still completely unsubstatiated.

Nor in ours; but what does constitute proof in our tradition differs from yours. So this entire conversation becomes that our traditions are different.

not really. saying that "well, our traditions differ" is in my mind, a copout to the producing of any actual subsantiation.

You are more than welcome to believe our teachings are wrong as you will - thats fine. And I hope it is clear my position is apologetic/offensive ( I am trying to explain something, not attack or convince).

sure, no problem. Nobody convinces anybody of anything around here.

At least we have a list.

so? that assumes the list has inherent value. I could have a list too, if I really wanted to do the same as your church and slap it together after the fact. I'd rather not waste my time though.

There is no evidence that Mary's ever-virginity was neither taught or known in her lifetime; further, we consider the NT a record of revelation - not revelation itself - and also not an exhaustive record of revelation (as in John's statement, and the absence of the record of the oral teachings of Paul to which the epistles were follow-up of a spiritual father, etc.)

there is no evidence that it wasn't taught that Mary was a fine tapdancer either.

Your Bible was written by men not all eyewitness... to the events...so what? how come you do not discect it?

I do disect it. And when I do, I find the "guts" right where they are supposed to be.

Horses do not have feathers...

I know. That's the point.

ECF were some eyewitness to the Apostles. And thus we believe the Bible to be valid through their witness... what do you have? A product of the Apostles hands.. who are fallable men...deal with it..

huh?

CJ if you beleive so much that the Mormons are true in their "revelation" why you do not become Mormon?

that isn't what he is saying, Philo.

 

[Philothei]

Just because they can substantiate their claims about Joseph Smith far better than you have done about these Marian DOGMAS doesn't mean that their position is correct, only that they do a better job of supporting them than you do yours (at least on this singular issue).

First of all:


- evidence of anything was scarse in the first century.... while evidence (made up evidence) is abudant in our times

-no one saw JSmith to get revelation from God he was alone.. .or bring forth evidence...

-His revelation is not talked about in the Bible...
-MAry's virginity is talked about in the instance with the angel when Mary referes to her virginity.... why we already knew she knew no man that she was a virgin... It is eschatologically spoken when she said ...for I am a virgin and KNOW no man.... it was meant he does not KNOW no man ....period...or she was offending God? By telling the angel something he already knew?

They have hundreds of persons all that personally knew Joseph Smith that testify to the truth of the claims,

That is not eyewittness ... as much as it is not eyewitness for the ressurection... and for Mary....

you don't have even one who knew Mary who says anything about any of these DOGMAS

No because they do not have any proof to their claims. We do somehow know the life of Mary from written documents that do trace buck to eyewitnesses of her life while JSmith does not as he was ALONE while that revelation took place...

No. It just means they have a stronger substantiation.

They do but they do not have Biblical substantiation neither do they have historical as nowhere in the Bible there is a prophet mentioned by the name Joseph Smith... While in the Bible we have plenty information that points out to Mary's ever virginity.

Friend, if I posted that Pope Benedict renounced his vows and converted to Islam, and stated so as dogmatic truth, a statement of the highest certainty, I just have a hunch you'd want some substantiation for that. Something other than "But I'm sincere and secure in what I said" or "but I cannot be wrong so therefore I'm not." You reject the LDS claims about Joseph Smith even though their substantiation for those things far exceeds the substantiation I've been seeking from you regarding Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - and you've been evading for pages now. Friend, I'm asking far less from you than you obviously require of the Mormon and I suspect you'd want from me regrading Pope Benedict becoming a Muslim. FAR less. And yet....

I am not an RC (you seem to forget to look at my faith icon) so I will let someone else to answer that one... cheers.

 

[Philothei]

Just because they can substantiate their claims about Joseph Smith far better than you have done about these Marian DOGMAS doesn't mean that their position is correct,

Hm... how so... You better explain some more that I can get enlightened ....

 

[Philothei]

that isn't what he is saying, Philo.

When you insist that something is "true" you have to follow up by why and why not... right?

If he thinks that they 'substantiate" beter ....then how come he does not follow them or how then he is convienced they are not true? He is the one building his staw man then why is he afraid to fall into it?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

According to you then all cults from the beginning of Chsitianity and Gnostic beliefs are substantiated and accepted...

I'm entirely puzzeled how you can respond as you do; I'm sure you read what I post but you seem to come to impossible conclusions....

Since you are stating that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN as a dogmatic fact - a statement of FACT of the very highest certainty - then such requires substantiation of the highest order. You have already indicated that dogma is NOT simply a matter of one proclaiming it (no matter how confident, secure and sincere they may be in its proclaimation). You don't accept the Mormon claims about Joseph Smith, you don't accept my claims about Pope Benedict becoming a Muslim yesterday - because you insist such needs to be substantiated, and this has not been done to a level required of dogma. Freind, for pages now, you have been making my point.

I'm ONLY asking of you what you insist from the Mormon (and I suspect would ask of me if I decreed a dogma of "Pope Benedict Renounced Catholicism and Became a Muslim." You'd insist on substantiation from reliable, credible sources that would clearly know if such is true or not. Sincerity, security would be moot to you. The fact that some 10 million people believe all these things about Joseph Smith (far more than believed these things about Mary until perhaps the late middle ages) you'd regard as moot. Friend, I'm holding you to a FAR lower "bar" of substaniation than you are holding the Mormon (and I suspect you would hold me on the Pope Benedict dogma). We have at least 100 people who personally knew Joseph Smith (some relatives and close friends) who stated, in writing, during Smith's lifetime, that these things are all true. You reject it, however, because such is insuffient substantiation (I tend to agree with you, BTW). And yet how many people do you have who knew Mary personally and who stated, in writing known to this day, that Mary never once had sex? By your admission: none. What other substantiation do you have for this DOGMA? Well, centuries later, an individual alludes to it, a person who never met Mary or anyone who ever had and who never reveals how this tidbit of information is known. IMHO, you are rejecting a level of substantiation as invalid while insisting on one MUCH, MUCH, MUCH weaker and lower - in fact, one that doesn't actually exist at all.

Normally, who'd care? I don't know how often you have had sex -a nd frankly, why does it matter - particularly to the very highest possible level? Here's why its' an issue: To spread popular but unsubstantiated reports or stories (NO MATTER HOW INNOCENT OR SINCERE) is declared by the Catholic Church to be a sin. False reports (especially of such a nature - an extremely personal, private, intmate nature) are hurtful, painful, embarrassing. If we had total disregard for Our Blessed Lady, maybe it wouldn't matter SO much (as if hurtful rumors and painful stories don't thrive in every junior high school), but SOME of us hold her in highest esteem, we adore, revere, and love Our Blessed Lady. Her feelings matter to us. We desire to not hurt or offend or embarrass her - and therefore her Son. To US, Truth matters when it relates to one we honor and love so much. She is our Mother, too. Watch what you say about her - especially dogmatically and especially about extremely private, personal issues that you admit you would not want spread all over the place....


Read the above carefully. I'm HOPING the point will be clear...

millions of eyeswitnesses

You're requiring a "bar" of substantiation FAR higher than I'm asking for, but okay, give me "millions of eyewittnesses" to the DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the names of "millions" who are eyewittnesses to her not once ever having had sex. I'll accept that, too. But YOU are the one establishing that 'bar' - not me.





.

 

[Philothei]

See with the ressurection we are not "afraid" to deal with it as it is mentioned also in the Tradition of the Church ... and the ECF... But if you trying to argue it from the Bible you hit the wall... and unfortuantely there are many Non-denominational churches who deny the ressurection never happened ....That is something YOU all need to deal with....