when did it start & when did it change

E.C. · Oct 28, 2008

fated said:
Looks like the OO/EO peeps took care of this one quite well.

Tag teaming, Eastern style.

With the OP, rejection of the Theotokos started with the so-called Reformers. They did so because the Roman Church at the time had gone corrupt with false relics, indulgences and all that other stuff that Protestants think are still rampant 500 years later without taking a look at how reality is in Rome. Basically, they saw dirty bathwater and instead of taking the baby out before tossing the bathwater, they tossed out both baby and dirty bathwater for an empty basin.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 28, 2008

Philothei said:
The earliest document is found in the Liturgy of St. James where the Theotokos is called EV during the worship...

Read this:

The Liturgy of Saint James is considered to be the oldest surviving liturgy developed for general use in the Church. Its date of composition is still disputed with a few authorities proposing an early date, perhaps ca. AD 60, while most authorities propose a IV century date, being this anaphora a developed from an ancient Egyptian form of the Basilean anaphoric family united with the anaphora described in The Catechisms of St. Cyril of Jerusalem [1].
The earliest manuscript is the ninth-century codex, Vaticanus graecus 2282, which had been in liturgical use at Damascus, in the diocese of Antioch.

It's generally regarded as FOURTH CENTURY....

Also the Protoevangelion mentions it...

No, it doesn't.

I actually have an entire thread on that rejected, noncanonical book here at CF. I quote THE ENTIRE BOOK, verbatim, for all to read. Everyone who does knows you are wrong. I suggest you take the time to read it.

.

Philothei · Oct 28, 2008

Josaih you need to come up with more information to dispute this. Not just wikepedia .... Most scholars accept that the anaphorae have been there since the first century example are the syriac and nestorian liturgies....You are not such an expert on this so why argue? Oh...just to win the impressions here... If you know about actually the liturgy of St. James bring forth sources that say that it was NOT first century and from a valid source please. Fourth century is the form we have today...as such is what we have for the Bible.. we have no text from the 1st century from the Bible actually most comes from the Byzantine text.....
You should take your own advice and research before you post.

Philothei · Oct 28, 2008

The Protoevangelion give hints and points to her Ever virginity like Joseph was much older than her and he had children from his previous marriage and non from Theotokos. Staying truly repsectful to Theotokos does not "state" the obvious but goes in a round about way. She was praised as EV during the Liturgy though as she was commemorated as EVER VIRGIN Theotokos... And that proves to the fact everyone considered it to be true....Sure they were not "loud" neither "offensive" about the fact she was as it was understood to be something that it was common knowledge back then as that of she was a Theotokos the Mother of Christ and the incarnation was no secret either.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 28, 2008

Philothei said:
Josaih you need to come up with more information to dispute this. Most scholars accept that the anaphorae have been there since the first century example are the syriac and nestorian liturgies....You are not such an expert on this so why argue?

Are you?

My research is that the first century date for the liturgy is not only highly disputed but infrequently accepted.

Philothei said:
The Protoevangelion give hints and points to her Ever virginity like Joseph was much older than her and he had children from his previous marriage and non from Theotokos.

What you stated is,

the Protoevangelion mentions it...

I noted that it does NOT.

You seem now to have changed your position and agree with me.

My uncle is much older than my aunt and has children from his previous marriage, that hardly is mentioning that my aunt is a perpetual (you know)...

.

Philothei · Nov 4, 2008

The Ever Virginity was never doubted prior to Christological contraversies. So there was no need to "establish" such "dogma" prior to actually having a reason to do so. The Church created "dogma" according to what it was disputed at the time... Just like the Holy Trinity was not a ''dogma" as we know it but much later with the "pneumatohachoi" contraversy. The Church was not "loud" for that reason about the EV of Mary. But around the 3/4th century when different heresies came about mostly about the person of Christ then in its wisdom the Church established it as dogma.

CaliforniaJosiah · Nov 4, 2008

Philothei said:
The Ever Virginity was never doubted prior to Christological contraversies.

I've seen ZERO evidence of that.

The original position seems to be that of Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James and, as far as is known, everyone else in the First Century and likely well beyond: Silence. NOTHING about how often Mary had sex during Her lifetime - if at all. THAT'S the original position.

The Church created "dogma"

So it would seem....
Evidently, beginning perhaps in the third century, it invented this. I don't think anyone knows why.

But the original position seems to have been the Bible's position.
Silence.

Around the 3/4th century when different heresies came about mostly about the person of Christ then in its wisdom the Church established it as dogma.

I agree with you, this dogma seems to have no existence prior to the third or fourth centuries - thus it displaced the earlier position which was of respectful silence on how often She and Joseph had intercourse - if at all.

What "controversy " existed in the fourth century about how often Mary had sex? I know of no such controversy in that time frame - and I researched this at some length.

.

Philothei · Nov 4, 2008

I've seen ZERO evidence of that.

Click to expand...

you are asking something evident... of course there is no evidence I already said it was not made into dogma prior to that... Trying and find evidence that the Bible was a canon prior to the 3rd centuray then... You cannot can you?

So asking for that evidence is moot.

Philothei · Nov 4, 2008

I don't think anyone knows why.

Click to expand...

I just said ...it.... because there was no need. Dogma came about because of contraversy... same with the Trinity... want to repeat yourself, then fine I will repeat myself too...

Philothei · Nov 4, 2008

thus it displaced the earlier position which was of respectful silence on how often She and Joseph had intercourse

Click to expand...

They were not silent. It was a "pious well accepted" belief and no one doubted about it. Later they decided to make it into dogma as there was christological contraversies.

CaliforniaJosiah · Nov 4, 2008

.

Philothei -

Since you seem to admit there is ZERO evidence that the idea even existed before the third or fourth century , then you comment that, "The Ever Virginity was never doubted prior to Christological contraversies" is baseless - an idea can't be "doubted" if it didn't exist.

You simply seem to be agreeing with me: The original position was silence (the position of every Protestant denomination known to me). This original position seemed to have been CHANGED in the late third or fourth century, officially in the late seventh. That's the answer to the question of this thread.

You indicated that the original position, the position of Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James and as far as we can tell, everyone in the first Century and well beyond, was CHANGED because of some "controversy" about how often She had sex in the third or fourth century. I'm not aware of any controversy over how often Mary and Joseph had intercourse, what controversy was that? Where there large numbers of Christians insisting that She had sex say 5000 times, some insisting that She had sex say 374 times, some insisting it was actually 62 times, some insisting never at all? I've never heard of that controversy. Why was the original position CHANGED beginning in the late third century and officially in the late 7th?

.

Thekla · Nov 4, 2008

As to the OP, I did ask my dad about the matter. He is now retired, but was a minister in the UCC and was from the Evangelical Reformed tradition. So that you know his potential bias, he was educated in theology at:
Lancaster Theological Seminary, UCC (Pa), Union Theological Seminary, Presbyterian (Va) Lutheran Theological Seminary, Lutheran (Pa), Mansfield College, United Reformed, previously Nonconformist (Oxford, UK), McCormick Theological Seminary, Presbyterian (Il), Princeton Theological Seminary, Presbyterian (NJ)

His response: it is his opinion that the attitude towards the veneration of and intercession to the Saints was the result of anti-Catholic bias combined with increasingly rationalist tendencies in society at large, leading to a forensic demand applied to matters of faith and spirituality.

Philothei · Nov 4, 2008

The christological contraversy was about the personhood of Christ be a man with Joseph his father... thus the dogma that Mary was Ever virgin and had no sex ever with Joseph...This does answer your premise which is false...You cannot deny something that was never disputed as false just because it was "silent"...Because what was silent was ONLY the contraversy not the belief in her EV. You are plain out flat ....wrong.

CaliforniaJosiah · Nov 4, 2008

Philothei said:
The christological contraversy was about the personhood of Christ be a man with Joseph his father.

So, who were the people arguing that, after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had sex "X" number of times? Who were the ones arguing that after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had sex NO times?

The PERPETUAL virginity of Mary is NOT that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born - obviously. You know what "perpetual" and "ever" mean, I'm very confident. So, the controvery that arose in the late third and early fourth centuries to which you spoke needs to be about how often Mary had sex AFTER Jesus was born. The dogma is NOT that she never had sex before Jesus was born, it's that she NEVER did. You know that. We all know that.

And again, you seem to be agreeing that the ORIGINAL position was silence on how often they did it after Jesus was born - the official position of every Protestant denomination known to me. But then it was CHANGED. You claim some HUGE controversy arose in the late third and early fourth centuries about how often Mary and Joseph has sex AFTER Jesus was born. Perhaps some large group said it was 5462 times, some that it is 690 times, maybe some that it was 133 times and some perhaps never at all. Okay, what is this controversy called? I've never heard of it. Who were the characters in this controversy, who was arguing for the various numbers of times they had intercourse? When I researched this dogma, I could not find this controvery, but you insist it happened - and that's why this dogma was invented - changing the original position of silence. Name that controvery for me, and who was fighting for which number of times they had sex. Thanks.

.

Philothei · Nov 4, 2008

You can go and figure out for yourself. It was Arius for starters and Nestorius. That should do. Per your saying it is not convencing since again you are "twisting" around what it was said. "silence" does not mean that they did "not believe it" but they were comfortable and no need to defend it ... Your twisting and turning ain't gonna save ya...

Anglian · Nov 6, 2008

Dear Josiah,

The idea that the Blessed Theotokos was 'ever virgin' is present from the third century in the Infancy Gospel of St. James, which no one seems to have queried as saying something new. So the idea certainly existed, and Philothei is correct in saying that the first time it ever became an issue was when heretics had their own motives for questioning it.

You simply seem to be agreeing with me: The original position was silence (the position of every Protestant denomination known to me). This original position seemed to have been CHANGED in the late third or fourth century, officially in the late seventh. That's the answer to the question of this thread.

Click to expand...

The original position was that every generation should call her 'blessed', and as Christians discussed what this meant and in what ways her son could be both perfect man and perfect God, the tradition that she was always a Virgin emerged. After Jerome's time this was not questioned again until some men in Western Europe in the sixteenth century decided they might know better, and even then, Luther maintained the ancient tradition of her being ever-Virgin.

My own Coptic Church has held this view for as long as there is any record. Our earliest written records were destroyed in the Roman persecutions of Diocletian, but there is no record that anyone in a Church founded in AD 58 has ever held any other view of the Blessed Virgin. Why prefer a tradition starting in modern times to one from antiquity?

The 'original' position on written Scripture is that there was no single canon, this was also changed in the fourth century in the face of heretics who were claiming Apostolicity for spurious books; would you wish to question the NT canon because it is not mentioned in itself? Where, in the NT, are the books that should be in it enumerated? Why do you accept this tradition of the Church and deny the other one? They date from the same period, and neither can be shown to have a first century provenance.

peace,

Anglian

MamaZ · Nov 7, 2008

The EV is not presented in the scriptures.. Now these were the very first of the Followers of Christ..

E.C. · Nov 7, 2008

MamaZ said:
The EV is not presented in the scriptures.. Now these were the very first of the Followers of Christ..

It is not there, because it did not need to be there.

It is something that has always been believed/followed/thought of/whatever until someone started saying they know better. Kind of like the Trinity: everyone knew that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God; it just did not need to be spelled out until Arius started saying that Christ was not God.

A part of Anglian's post above:

The original position was that every generation should call her 'blessed', and as Christians discussed what this meant and in what ways her son could be both perfect man and perfect God, the tradition that she was always a Virgin emerged. After Jerome's time this was not questioned again until some men in Western Europe in the sixteenth century decided they might know better, and even then, Luther maintained the ancient tradition of her being ever-Virgin.

MamaZ · Nov 7, 2008

I don't see where it was always believed..

OrthodoxyUSA · Nov 7, 2008

St. John called her Virgin on her death bed...

And when they had prayed, there was thunder from heaven, and there came a fearful voice, as if of chariots; and, behold, a multitude of a host of angels and powers, and a voice, as if of the Son of man, was heard, and the seraphim in a circle round the house where the holy, spotless mother of God and virgin was lying, so that all who were in Bethlehem beheld all the wonderful things, and came to Jerusalem and reported all the wonderful things that had come to pass.

Forgive me...

when did it start & when did it change

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Love never fails

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Love never fails

Love never fails

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Love never fails

let us love one another, for love is of God

MamaZ

Guest

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency