Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It is starting to get a little out of context . . . .

There is a substantial link between the two... I just felt that it's somewhat a sidebar and deserves its own thread.

No offense to anyone.

Forgive me...

 

[IamAdopted]

And where may I ask did all these St."t get there information about Mary.. It had to be apart from the bible because Mary is never listed as such in scripture.. The NT was written in greek. There is a word for brother and also for blood realative.. So do your history.. These men whom claim that Mary was a virgin for all time did not get this from Scripture.. The bible tells us that Mary had other children.. The bible tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters.. We don't change the wording to make it fit theology we want.. We let the scriptures tell us our theology.. So therefore if it is not written it is not so..

The bible also tells us that God told Joseph in a dream to go ahead and take Mary for His Wife.. Which He did..

 

[Asinner]

Well, if He was going to do it all, why did He tell Adam and Eve to "be fruitfull and multiply?

"You didn't answer my question", sayeth one artful dodger to another.

Our purpose is to worship and serve God by obeying Him. One of His first commandments to man and woman was to “be fruitful and multiply.” So, was/is it our only reason? I don’t believe so. However, clearly it was very important to Him since He told us we must do it.

He knew man would fall and made provision beforehand. Our purpose is Theosis. Worship was given to us by God as a way to achieve this and Obedience is one aspect to denying self, picking up cross, and following Him.

Where does one find this information? Is it taught in your church? Is it taught in the RCC? I refer you back to my point above. If God intended to do it all, why did He tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply?

Genesis 4:1. After the fall.





And St. John Damascene writes:
Virginity was practiced in Paradise… After the fall... to keep the race from dwindling and being destroyed by death, marriage was devised, so that by the begetting of children the race of men might be preserved.

But they may ask: What, then, does "male and female" mean, and "increase and multiply"? To which we shall reply that the "increase and multiply" does not mean increasing by the marriage union exclusively, because if they had kept the commandment unbroken forever, God could have increased the race by some other means. But, since God, Who knows all things before they come to be, saw by His foreknowledge how they were to fall and be condemned to death, He made provision beforehand by creating them male and female and commanding them to increase and multiply.

If it is so, that before the fall, Eve and Adam were purely spiritual in every manner and way, then sexual relations are not the only result of the fall . . . . the need to eat, drink, sleep, pass human waste, etc . . . . all result form this. Why do sexual relations stand out as more significant consequences?

It just so happens to be the OP at the moment. Another result of the Fall was they were no longer vegetarians. Would you rather discuss this consequence or should we stay on topic?

Eve was cursed with pain during childbirth, that is what God put upon her for her part. If she was never intended to bear children, why would He have cursed her with this?

Because God is omniscient.

If humans were to be “spiritual,” why did God put upon the earth plants for food and animals beneath men? How would “physical” animals serve “spiritual” men/women?

Who said that humans were only spiritual?

Love,
Christina

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Leviticus 26:1 `Ye do not make to yourselves idols; and graven image or standing image ye do not set up to yourselves; and a stone of imagery ye do not put in your land, to bow yourselves to it; for I [am] Jehovah your God.

 

[Kristos]

And when he had taken her, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son."5 He hath here used the word "till," not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, "till"? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, "The raven returned not till the earth was dried up."6 And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, "From age until age Thou art,"7 not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, "In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,"8 it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord9 commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?
How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."10

 

[racer]

I see you're maxed out on emoticons, leaving me none.

Ha! Ha! I knew you'd get it . . . . I started to just put four (4), then it clicked that you would then put five (5) and I could go no further from there.

No one doubts that God is capable of anything He so chooses . . . yet, He chose to be born of a woman. Is this insignificant? I believe it is quite significant, as does most of Christianity.

Yes, nobody disputes that at all . . . . .

 

[IamAdopted]

So it is okay to use vain phylosphey with Scripture? Paul says we are not to do this.. Not to be lead astray by this.. We are to test everything to see if it be from God.. Not the vain Phylosopehy of men..

 

[racer]

Not with humans . . . that much we do know . . . .
But, I don't know if they procreate. Do they multiply? That's a good question . . . tho.

Well, I guess I need to correct myself here . . . we do know that male angels did mate with female humans and did produce offspring . . . (well, some believe this is what occurred in Gen 6).

As a side note, it is pointed out that the Bible only references "male" angels.

 

[Asinner]

Well, I guess I need to correct myself here . . . we do know that male angels did mate with female humans and did produce offspring . . . (well, some believe this is what occurred in Gen 6).

As a side note, it is pointed out that the Bible only references "male" angels.

What!!

 

[Asinner]

Well, I guess I need to correct myself here . . . we do know that male angels did mate with female humans and did produce offspring . . . (well, some believe this is what occurred in Gen 6).

As a side note, it is pointed out that the Bible only references "male" angels.

So . . . Not only is the mother of God having sexual relations, but now the angels are too!!!! I guess the DaVinci Code is right up everyone's alley? Are our minds so depraved that virginity has become scandalous and second to marriage? Honestly, I am speechless.

 

[Axion]

Now, since Mary is filled with Grace, and most Blessed....
Anyone wish to tell me why she would have a need to have siblings for God?

Doesnt the OT tell us that a 'gate' the Lord passes through, that no man will pass through...?

How is a gate held in higher regard than the woman most Blessed who carries the WORD OF GOD ...GOD HIMSELF, not as high in regard?

To ponder a close relationship to God would be to understand all the foreshadowing of not only the Son, but His Most blessed Mother too.

No gate, no womb.

Exactly! Those people who want to argue that God was happy with one only-begotten son, but Mary wasn't..

And if all the people listed as Brothers and Sisters of Jesus were actually siblings, Mary would have had to have had at least SEVEN surviving children after Jesus (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time!)

Again, people are reading dodgy third-hand translations of 1st century Hebrew terms for 1st century relationships, and trying to use their perceptions of these things to argue that the Church throughout history got it all wrong. It's only a couple of steps from that to joining the sort of people who swear that that Jesus was married and had kids!

 

[WarriorAngel]

Leviticus 26:1 `Ye do not make to yourselves idols; and graven image or standing image ye do not set up to yourselves; and a stone of imagery ye do not put in your land, to bow yourselves to it; for I [am] Jehovah your God.

Then could you explain to the rest of the class why He said to stand a brazen serpent up on a pole for others to see when they were bit and they would be saved. [Numbers 21]

Well, I guess I need to correct myself here . . . we do know that male angels did mate with female humans and did produce offspring . . . (well, some believe this is what occurred in Gen 6).

As a side note, it is pointed out that the Bible only references "male" angels.

That is completely contextual, or Christ words have no merit.
The context has many impliactions, but I daresay Christ is very clear....

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.(Matt 22:30)

 

[racer]

"You didn't answer my question", sayeth one artful dodger to another.

Well, I actually thought that was a rhetorical questions since the answer is common knowledge . . . . He formed Adam from dust and Eve from Adam's rib? Is this how you propose that "Adam and Eve" were going to procreate when obeying God's command to be fruitful and multiply?

He knew man would fall and made provision beforehand. Our purpose is Theosis. Worship was given to us by God as a way to achieve this and Obedience is one aspect to denying self, picking up cross, and following Him.

Okay, "communion with God . . . " But, really you are starting to veer a little too far from the OP, unless you plan on neatly tying it all in together . . . .

Genesis 4:1. After the fall.

And St. John Damascene writes:

Genesis 2 says prior to the fall:

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Nudity nor marital sex were considered dirty until after the fall.

Virginity was practiced in Paradise… After the fall... to keep the race from dwindling and being destroyed by death, marriage was devised, so that by the begetting of children the race of men might be preserved.

I would be interested to know what St. John used as his source for this belief.

It just so happens to be the OP at the moment. Another result of the Fall was they were no longer vegetarians. Would you rather discuss this consequence or should we stay on topic?

But, my point is that your argument implies that for Mary to have "marital" sex would make her impure. To my way of thinking, if this were true, every other natural human act she performs, (presuming that you are right and marital sex would somehow defile her) would also defile her.

Because God is omniscient.

Huh? How does that address my rhetorical question? We all know why Eve was cursed . . . and even though we do know that God is omniscient . . . that's not why she was cursed . . . . .

From Gen 3:

14 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
15 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


God clearly intended for Eve to bear children--physically.

Who said that humans were only spiritual?

Are you purposefully contorting this conversation? You and WA (or at least one of you) have been arguing that before the fall Adam and Eve were spiritual beings . . . .

 

[racer]

What!!

You never heard of the Nephilim?

 

[racer]

So . . . Not only is the mother of God having sexual relations, but now the angels are too!!!! I guess the DaVinci Code is right up everyone's alley? Are our minds so depraved that virginity has become scandalous and second to marriage? Honestly, I am speechless.

Have you ever read Genesis 6? Maybe you should read it before you get your knickers in such a bunch . . . Better yet, did you read my complete post?

 

[racer]

It comes to this;
WE do not know before the fall how God would have the first couple populate the earth.

Just read Genesis 2 & 3 which I have quoted from above. To believe that they would have procreated any differently than they now do is presumptuous and rather pointless at this stage.

We do not really know how angels populate...

Or if they actually do at all. What we do know is what is revealed to us by God in Scripture

Ireneaus

Against Heresies
Book II

Chapter XXVIII.-Perfect Knowledge Cannot Be Attained in the Present Life: Many Questions Must Be Submissively Left in the Hands of God.

1. Having therefore the truth itself as our rule and the testimony concerning God set clearly before us, we ought not, by running after numerous and diverse answers to questions, to cast away the firm and true knowledge of God . . .
2. If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety. We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account227 destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries . . . ? We may say a great deal, plausible or otherwise, on the subject; but what is true, sure, and incontrovertible regarding it, belongs only to God.
3. If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] Which belongs only to God, and others which come with in the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God . . . .

but we do know that Christ told us there would be no marrying and giving in marriage in Heaven.

Okay . . . . .

We know this means there is no sexual relationships in Heaven.

Okay . . . .

Angels are created by God.

Okay . . . .

We also know, through the virgin birth that God doesnt need a man and woman to have relations in order for HIM to give a woman a child.

Okay . . . .

SOooooo, Mary is the Heaven type of what we would have been had we not fallen.

A huge leap and speculation . . . . not even your faith teaches this unquestionably . . . does it?

And as the angels, she relied solely on God to give birth, but even moreso, she gave BIRTH TO GOD HIMSELF.

And . . . . ? Tell us something we don't know, please.

Ya just cant seem to wrap your minds around that awesome task...

What awsome task? That Mary gave birth to Christ? We all know this . . . . what are you talking about?

Giving birth to GOD is not an everyday ordinary event.

Really?

He is beyond touching...and yet He touched Mary. He lived in Mary. He is a part of Mary since He took her human flesh.

And He was touched by every human that was blessed by His physical presence during His earthly tenure . . . . . what is your point?

SHE is the gate the Lord passed through...that NO man [sinner] shall pass through.

Was Jesus a man?

 

[racer]

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.(Matt 22:30)

The original state was like the state to which we will return.

Please read Genesis 2 and 3.

 

[racer]

Exactly. We were created in His Image.

Exactly who is created in His image? Man or woman? Are we completely in His image or just a little bit like Him?

 

[Asinner]

Let's start here. Genesis 4:1. The beginning of marriage.

Your interpretation of Genesis 6 goes against the verse in Matthew I quoted earlier. Besides, can angels beget men? :o

BTW, my knickers are not only twisted, but are inside out and on backwards.

 

[racer]

Exactly! Those people who want to argue that God was happy with one only-begotten son, but Mary wasn't..

What? God had all of humanity, and Mary would have considered it her duty to obey God . . . as always and she would have sought to bear more children.

And if all the people listed as Brothers and Sisters of Jesus were actually siblings, . . . .

Nothing but speculation and guess work . . .

Again, people are reading dodgy third-hand translations of 1st century Hebrew terms for 1st century relationships, and trying to use their perceptions of these things to argue that the Church throughout history got it all wrong. It's only a couple of steps from that to joining the sort of people who swear that that Jesus was married and had kids!

Really? Then quote to us from your translation. Clean it all up for us . . . .