Mary Alone

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

User avatar
FredS
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Posts: 21419
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Mary Alone

Post by FredS » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm

Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:00 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:14 am
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .Do you know if Catholicism holds that Jesus was incarnate in the womb or only after He was born? There were certainly other miracles while He was fully human so it's not unreasonable that He could have been fully human in the womb and still have been miraculously delivered out of it.
Jesus was God Incarnate from the moment of His conception. Mary said “Let it be done,” and God entered His creation.
j1n wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:02 pm
But isn't it pretty widely believed (by Catholics and Protestants too) that Jesus was always fully God and fully man? That's what I believe. It's difficult to wrap my head around (sorta like the concept of God being three in one and the concept of "eternity" or "forever". I guess I just chalk it up to being a mystery, and that our understanding isn't anywhere near as deep as God's.
I suppose that's the case, but if He was not born the way every other human has been born He sort of skipped over a pretty important part of humanhood.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 35712
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by UncleBob » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:21 pm

FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:00 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:14 am
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .Do you know if Catholicism holds that Jesus was incarnate in the womb or only after He was born? There were certainly other miracles while He was fully human so it's not unreasonable that He could have been fully human in the womb and still have been miraculously delivered out of it.
Jesus was God Incarnate from the moment of His conception. Mary said “Let it be done,” and God entered His creation.
j1n wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:02 pm
But isn't it pretty widely believed (by Catholics and Protestants too) that Jesus was always fully God and fully man? That's what I believe. It's difficult to wrap my head around (sorta like the concept of God being three in one and the concept of "eternity" or "forever". I guess I just chalk it up to being a mystery, and that our understanding isn't anywhere near as deep as God's.
I suppose that's the case, but if He was not born the way every other human has been born He sort of skipped over a pretty important part of humanhood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yV_OBybZ00
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
j1n
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: southeast of the northwest territories
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by j1n » Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:10 pm

FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:00 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:14 am
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .Do you know if Catholicism holds that Jesus was incarnate in the womb or only after He was born? There were certainly other miracles while He was fully human so it's not unreasonable that He could have been fully human in the womb and still have been miraculously delivered out of it.
Jesus was God Incarnate from the moment of His conception. Mary said “Let it be done,” and God entered His creation.
j1n wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:02 pm
But isn't it pretty widely believed (by Catholics and Protestants too) that Jesus was always fully God and fully man? That's what I believe. It's difficult to wrap my head around (sorta like the concept of God being three in one and the concept of "eternity" or "forever". I guess I just chalk it up to being a mystery, and that our understanding isn't anywhere near as deep as God's.
I suppose that's the case, but if He was not born the way every other human has been born He sort of skipped over a pretty important part of humanhood.
The way that Del put it - "...that all of the messy blood and placenta were dealt with in the usual messy way. I doubt that it was as tidy as a painting by Raphael.
Why? -- Because I am a flesh-loving Catholic. The Incarnation was as meaty as it sounds."

That is VERY close to how the Pastoral Associate that I spoke with put it. I think it sounds very honest.
I'm your huckleberry

Ruin my dinner and I'll ruin your life.
- my wife

User avatar
sweetandsour
Minister of Pipe Breaking
Minister of Pipe Breaking
Posts: 9646
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Bayou Self
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by sweetandsour » Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:31 pm

You guys are still talking about this.
I'm old but I'm happy. (Most of the time.)

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37666
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Del » Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:18 pm

FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:00 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:14 am
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .Do you know if Catholicism holds that Jesus was incarnate in the womb or only after He was born? There were certainly other miracles while He was fully human so it's not unreasonable that He could have been fully human in the womb and still have been miraculously delivered out of it.
Jesus was God Incarnate from the moment of His conception. Mary said “Let it be done,” and God entered His creation.
j1n wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:02 pm
But isn't it pretty widely believed (by Catholics and Protestants too) that Jesus was always fully God and fully man? That's what I believe. It's difficult to wrap my head around (sorta like the concept of God being three in one and the concept of "eternity" or "forever". I guess I just chalk it up to being a mystery, and that our understanding isn't anywhere near as deep as God's.
I suppose that's the case, but if He was not born the way every other human has been born He sort of skipped over a pretty important part of humanhood.
We can have fun, speculating as to how Jesus was born without spoiling Mary's virginity.

Theologians are more concerned with the matter of what God is revealing us, in the preservation of her virginity.

There is an ancient tradition that Mary did not suffer any of the usual pains of labor. Labor pains are the curse of Eve's sin (Gen 3:16), and Mary.... well, you know.

But Simeon prophesied that Mary's heart would be pierced by a sword (Luke 2:35), and she suffered this at the foot of the Cross. Mary was not deprived of the suffering of motherhood.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 13193
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by tuttle » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:11 am

sweetandsour wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:31 pm
You guys are still talking about this.
Are you new here?

We'll be talking about this...

Image
Christmas is Yule, dummies! We're doing the same thing, just better!

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 13193
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by tuttle » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:30 am

Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:18 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:00 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:14 am
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .Do you know if Catholicism holds that Jesus was incarnate in the womb or only after He was born? There were certainly other miracles while He was fully human so it's not unreasonable that He could have been fully human in the womb and still have been miraculously delivered out of it.
Jesus was God Incarnate from the moment of His conception. Mary said “Let it be done,” and God entered His creation.
j1n wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:02 pm
But isn't it pretty widely believed (by Catholics and Protestants too) that Jesus was always fully God and fully man? That's what I believe. It's difficult to wrap my head around (sorta like the concept of God being three in one and the concept of "eternity" or "forever". I guess I just chalk it up to being a mystery, and that our understanding isn't anywhere near as deep as God's.
I suppose that's the case, but if He was not born the way every other human has been born He sort of skipped over a pretty important part of humanhood.
We can have fun, speculating as to how Jesus was born without spoiling Mary's virginity.

Theologians are more concerned with the matter of what God is revealing us, in the preservation of her virginity.

There is an ancient tradition that Mary did not suffer any of the usual pains of labor. Labor pains are the curse of Eve's sin (Gen 3:16), and Mary.... well, you know.

But Simeon prophesied that Mary's heart would be pierced by a sword (Luke 2:35), and she suffered this at the foot of the Cross. Mary was not deprived of the suffering of motherhood.
What is this tradition that says Mary didn't suffer labor pains?
Christmas is Yule, dummies! We're doing the same thing, just better!

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37666
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Del » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:07 am

tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:30 am
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:18 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:00 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:14 am
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .Do you know if Catholicism holds that Jesus was incarnate in the womb or only after He was born? There were certainly other miracles while He was fully human so it's not unreasonable that He could have been fully human in the womb and still have been miraculously delivered out of it.
Jesus was God Incarnate from the moment of His conception. Mary said “Let it be done,” and God entered His creation.
j1n wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:02 pm
But isn't it pretty widely believed (by Catholics and Protestants too) that Jesus was always fully God and fully man? That's what I believe. It's difficult to wrap my head around (sorta like the concept of God being three in one and the concept of "eternity" or "forever". I guess I just chalk it up to being a mystery, and that our understanding isn't anywhere near as deep as God's.
I suppose that's the case, but if He was not born the way every other human has been born He sort of skipped over a pretty important part of humanhood.
We can have fun, speculating as to how Jesus was born without spoiling Mary's virginity.

Theologians are more concerned with the matter of what God is revealing us, in the preservation of her virginity.

There is an ancient tradition that Mary did not suffer any of the usual pains of labor. Labor pains are the curse of Eve's sin (Gen 3:16), and Mary.... well, you know.

But Simeon prophesied that Mary's heart would be pierced by a sword (Luke 2:35), and she suffered this at the foot of the Cross. Mary was not deprived of the suffering of motherhood.
What is this tradition that says Mary didn't suffer labor pains?
Didn’t they teach you anything about Mary in Sunday School?

You can google comments on this for yourself. I found this easy enough.
https://www.catholic.com/index.php/qa/d ... abor-pains
Last edited by Del on Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
FredS
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Posts: 21419
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Mary Alone

Post by FredS » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:10 am

tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:30 am
What is this tradition that says Mary didn't suffer labor pains?
Epidural blocks (and beer) are proof that God loves us.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 13193
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by tuttle » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:29 am

Del wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:07 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:30 am
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:18 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:00 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:14 am
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .Do you know if Catholicism holds that Jesus was incarnate in the womb or only after He was born? There were certainly other miracles while He was fully human so it's not unreasonable that He could have been fully human in the womb and still have been miraculously delivered out of it.
Jesus was God Incarnate from the moment of His conception. Mary said “Let it be done,” and God entered His creation.
j1n wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:02 pm
But isn't it pretty widely believed (by Catholics and Protestants too) that Jesus was always fully God and fully man? That's what I believe. It's difficult to wrap my head around (sorta like the concept of God being three in one and the concept of "eternity" or "forever". I guess I just chalk it up to being a mystery, and that our understanding isn't anywhere near as deep as God's.
I suppose that's the case, but if He was not born the way every other human has been born He sort of skipped over a pretty important part of humanhood.
We can have fun, speculating as to how Jesus was born without spoiling Mary's virginity.

Theologians are more concerned with the matter of what God is revealing us, in the preservation of her virginity.

There is an ancient tradition that Mary did not suffer any of the usual pains of labor. Labor pains are the curse of Eve's sin (Gen 3:16), and Mary.... well, you know.

But Simeon prophesied that Mary's heart would be pierced by a sword (Luke 2:35), and she suffered this at the foot of the Cross. Mary was not deprived of the suffering of motherhood.
What is this tradition that says Mary didn't suffer labor pains?
Didn’t they teach you anything about Mary in Sunday School?

You can google comments on this for yourself. I found this easy enough.
https://www.catholic.com/index.php/qa/d ... abor-pains
Thanks for the link.

As for Sunday School, no, as protestants who don't believe in the perpetual virginity, we never got around to speculating on whether or not it was a normal human birth or a teleported birth (I'm not trying to be flippant using this term. It's been tossed out and I only use it for convenience here and not offense. If you have a better term, I'll use it), and since we also don't believe that Mary was preserved from original sin, we didn't think about if her experience was painful or not. I see why it is important for Catholics to think about these things though.
Christmas is Yule, dummies! We're doing the same thing, just better!

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37666
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Del » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:30 pm

tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:29 am
Del wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:07 am
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:30 am
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:18 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm
Del wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:00 pm
FredS wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:14 am
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . .Do you know if Catholicism holds that Jesus was incarnate in the womb or only after He was born? There were certainly other miracles while He was fully human so it's not unreasonable that He could have been fully human in the womb and still have been miraculously delivered out of it.
Jesus was God Incarnate from the moment of His conception. Mary said “Let it be done,” and God entered His creation.
j1n wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:02 pm
But isn't it pretty widely believed (by Catholics and Protestants too) that Jesus was always fully God and fully man? That's what I believe. It's difficult to wrap my head around (sorta like the concept of God being three in one and the concept of "eternity" or "forever". I guess I just chalk it up to being a mystery, and that our understanding isn't anywhere near as deep as God's.
I suppose that's the case, but if He was not born the way every other human has been born He sort of skipped over a pretty important part of humanhood.
We can have fun, speculating as to how Jesus was born without spoiling Mary's virginity.

Theologians are more concerned with the matter of what God is revealing us, in the preservation of her virginity.

There is an ancient tradition that Mary did not suffer any of the usual pains of labor. Labor pains are the curse of Eve's sin (Gen 3:16), and Mary.... well, you know.

But Simeon prophesied that Mary's heart would be pierced by a sword (Luke 2:35), and she suffered this at the foot of the Cross. Mary was not deprived of the suffering of motherhood.
What is this tradition that says Mary didn't suffer labor pains?
Didn’t they teach you anything about Mary in Sunday School?

You can google comments on this for yourself. I found this easy enough.
https://www.catholic.com/index.php/qa/d ... abor-pains
Thanks for the link.

As for Sunday School, no, as protestants who don't believe in the perpetual virginity, we never got around to speculating on whether or not it was a normal human birth or a teleported birth (I'm not trying to be flippant using this term. It's been tossed out and I only use it for convenience here and not offense. If you have a better term, I'll use it), and since we also don't believe that Mary was preserved from original sin, we didn't think about if her experience was painful or not. I see why it is important for Catholics to think about these things though.
Relax... there is no offense in speaking of "teleported birth." You mean no insult. No one is going to call a Mod on you.

We don't know how it happened... We just know that it did. Just like Jesus' passing through the locked door. We can have fun speculating about the how.

My faith and understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would not be troubled by any talk of Jesus' being born in the usual way -- opening the birth canal. That does not insult Mary's sexual purity, which is the heart of the matter.

If Jesus had passed through the birth canal, it would give a deeper richness to the biblical foreshadowing.

Main thing to always keep in mind: We don't expect the Bible to teach us everything. That is strictly a Protestant dogma.

The first thing is to receive the teaching of the Apostles... They knew Mary, and they knew she was a virgin -- before, during, and after the birth of Christ. We must have this first, then we can go to the Bible to seek understanding.


The Early Church Fathers looked back to the Ark of the Covenant (in which God had a specific dwelling) and saw the Ark as a type for Mary, in whom God dwelled.

No one touched Mary, just as no one touched the Ark.
Numbers 4:15
2 Samuel 6:6-7

And when has Lord passed through a gate, it is to be sealed and none other shall pass through it.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ekiel 44:2

However it was that Jesus left Mary's womb, the Bible fully resonates with the notion that Mary is a sacred vessel, God's highly favored one, and reserved for God alone -- not to be touched or passed through as God has done.
Last edited by Del on Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Joshoowah
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Posts: 4816
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Nairobi, Kenya; formerly Wilmore, KY; Formerly Athens, AL
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Joshoowah » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:30 pm


Del wrote:
The ancient understanding of virginity was "opening the womb." The modern definition is confined to sexual innocence. Since Jesus and Mary and the Gospels were so long ago, we have to open ourselves to the ancient understanding.
I understand the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception, but I do not understand where this idea of the ancient understanding of virginity meaning "opening the womb."

I am genuinely seeking a starting point on this thought because this has never came up in my Church Father reading (I have them all) nor my cultural studies of the Ancient Near East or the Roman first-century.

I do know the term virgin had a broader meaning, but I've just never seen the reference you used anywhere. I'm going to go through my Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew lexicons later to see if I missed something.

Sent from my CPH1723 using Tapatalk


"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose?" Philippians 1:21-22

ImageImage

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37666
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Del » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:42 pm

Joshoowah wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:30 pm
Del wrote:
The ancient understanding of virginity was "opening the womb." The modern definition is confined to sexual innocence. Since Jesus and Mary and the Gospels were so long ago, we have to open ourselves to the ancient understanding.
I understand the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception, but I do not understand where this idea of the ancient understanding of virginity meaning "opening the womb."

I am genuinely seeking a starting point on this thought because this has never came up in my Church Father reading (I have them all) nor my cultural studies of the Ancient Near East or the Roman first-century.

I do know the term virgin had a broader meaning, but I've just never seen the reference you used anywhere. I'm going to go through my Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew lexicons later to see if I missed something.

Sent from my CPH1723 using Tapatalk
Here is a brief segment from my Mariology textbook. Note the reference from St. Augustine.
Mary’s Virginity in the Birth

It was also fitting that Christ Himself leave intact that bodily integrity of His Mother when He came forth from the womb, to give further evidence that she was the fulfillment of the figure in the Old Testament of a garden enclosed and a fountain sealed (Song 4:12). Thus He came forth through closed doors, much as on the day of His Resurrection, in His glorious body, He came through the closed doors of the Cenacle, locked for fear of the Jews. In a homily on the Nativity, St. Augustine made this comparison:

"Why, then, could He, who as a grown man was able to enter through closed portals, not pass through incorrupt members as an infant?. . . If faith believes that God was born in the flesh, it does not doubt that the two miracles are possible to God, namely, that though the doors of the house were closed, He manifested His mature body to those within the house, and that as an infant He came forth, a spouse from His bride-chamber, that is, from the virginal womb, leaving His Mother‘s integrity inviolate."150

In this way, Mary did not suffer the pains of childbirth as other mothers do who are subject to the penalties of original sin.
Furthermore, the pain of labor in childbirth is a penalty of original sin, as seen in Gen 3:16, in which God said to Eve: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children." It was fitting that Mary, who was exempt from all stain of original sin, be exempt from the pains of childbirth in the birth of her Son.

150 St. Augustine, Sermon 191.1 on the Nativity, trans. Mary S. Muldowney, in Saint Augustine: Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons, series: Fathers of the Church, vol. 38 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1959), 29.
I have more references, if you want to dig further.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
FredS
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Posts: 21419
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: NOCO (Northern Colorado)

Re: Mary Alone

Post by FredS » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:49 pm

I appreciate that Del has mentioned a few times that we can 'have fun' speculating on these non-essential matters. It's an 'angels on the head (or point) of a pin' type deal.

If you guys are interested in a Colorado meet up, bloodhound, durangopipe, and I can supply some herb (byop) and we'll really get trippy with these esoteric topics. It aint called the high country for nothin'.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
Jocose
a large Chinese man named Wu
a large Chinese man named Wu
Posts: 21187
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Jocose » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:59 pm

ATTN:

THE ORTHODOX VIEW ON MARY IS VERY VERY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE RC VIEW ON MARY

THAT IS ALL

CARRY ON.
"And for Freds sake, DO NOT point anyone towards CPS or you'll put them off of both Christianity and pipe smoking forever." ~ FredS



Image

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 13193
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by tuttle » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:04 pm

Del wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:30 pm
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:29 am
Thanks for the link.

As for Sunday School, no, as protestants who don't believe in the perpetual virginity, we never got around to speculating on whether or not it was a normal human birth or a teleported birth (I'm not trying to be flippant using this term. It's been tossed out and I only use it for convenience here and not offense. If you have a better term, I'll use it), and since we also don't believe that Mary was preserved from original sin, we didn't think about if her experience was painful or not. I see why it is important for Catholics to think about these things though.
Relax... there is no offense in speaking of "teleported birth." You mean no insult. No one is going to call a Mod on you.

We don't know how it happened... We just know that it did. Just like Jesus' passing through the locked door. We can have fun speculating about the how.

My faith and understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would not be troubled by any talk of Jesus' being born in the usual way -- opening the birth canal.
1.
That does not insult Mary's sexual purity, which is the heart of the matter.


If Jesus had passed through the birth canal, it would give a deeper richness to the biblical foreshadowing.

Main thing to always keep in mind: 2. We don't expect the Bible to teach us everything. That is strictly a Protestant dogma.

The first thing is to receive the teaching of the Apostles...
They knew Mary, and they knew she was a virgin -- before, during, and after the birth of Christ. We must have this first, then we can go to the Bible to seek understanding.


The Early Church Fathers looked back to the Ark of the Covenant (in which God had a specific dwelling) and saw the Ark as a type for Mary, in whom God dwelled.

No one touched Mary, just as no one touched the Ark.
Numbers 4:15
2 Samuel 6:6-7

And when has Lord passed through a gate, it is to be sealed and none other shall pass through it.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ekiel 44:2

However it was that Jesus left Mary's womb, the Bible fully resonates with the notion that Mary is a sacred vessel, God's highly favored one, and reserved for God alone -- not to be touched or passed through as God has done.
Again, I'm all for speculation. No harm, no foul. I find that if you can't play within theology, then your theology probably isn't too solid. No one jumps around on a pogo stick on thin ice.

A couple of riffs (responding to the highlighted above):
1) If maintaining Mary's virginity is the heart of the matter. Then sure. Go for it. But I would contend that Christ's Incarnation, and his humanity, is more to the heart of the matter, which is why a teleportation birth seems to be a shaky foundation to set the stage of the Incarnation. (Again, I'm not saying this is the intended Catholic teaching). But wos has sort of addressed it, at least enough to satisfy my questioning about it. And you've said yourself it's a bit of speculation. We can let it pass.

2) The Scriptures are literally the teaching of the Apostles. That's what they gave us. And I agree that the Bible doesn't have to teach us everything, but I think it's fair to at least say that those things we learn outside of the Bible, if ever they contradict or undermine what the Apostles passed down to us in the Bible, ought to let the Scriptures hold sway over them.
Christmas is Yule, dummies! We're doing the same thing, just better!

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37666
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Del » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:40 pm

tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:04 pm
Del wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:30 pm
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:29 am
Thanks for the link.

As for Sunday School, no, as protestants who don't believe in the perpetual virginity, we never got around to speculating on whether or not it was a normal human birth or a teleported birth (I'm not trying to be flippant using this term. It's been tossed out and I only use it for convenience here and not offense. If you have a better term, I'll use it), and since we also don't believe that Mary was preserved from original sin, we didn't think about if her experience was painful or not. I see why it is important for Catholics to think about these things though.
Relax... there is no offense in speaking of "teleported birth." You mean no insult. No one is going to call a Mod on you.

We don't know how it happened... We just know that it did. Just like Jesus' passing through the locked door. We can have fun speculating about the how.

My faith and understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would not be troubled by any talk of Jesus' being born in the usual way -- opening the birth canal.
1.
That does not insult Mary's sexual purity, which is the heart of the matter.


If Jesus had passed through the birth canal, it would give a deeper richness to the biblical foreshadowing.

Main thing to always keep in mind: 2. We don't expect the Bible to teach us everything. That is strictly a Protestant dogma.

The first thing is to receive the teaching of the Apostles...
They knew Mary, and they knew she was a virgin -- before, during, and after the birth of Christ. We must have this first, then we can go to the Bible to seek understanding.


The Early Church Fathers looked back to the Ark of the Covenant (in which God had a specific dwelling) and saw the Ark as a type for Mary, in whom God dwelled.

No one touched Mary, just as no one touched the Ark.
Numbers 4:15
2 Samuel 6:6-7

And when has Lord passed through a gate, it is to be sealed and none other shall pass through it.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ekiel 44:2

However it was that Jesus left Mary's womb, the Bible fully resonates with the notion that Mary is a sacred vessel, God's highly favored one, and reserved for God alone -- not to be touched or passed through as God has done.
Again, I'm all for speculation. No harm, no foul. I find that if you can't play within theology, then your theology probably isn't too solid. No one jumps around on a pogo stick on thin ice.

A couple of riffs (responding to the highlighted above):
1) If maintaining Mary's virginity is the heart of the matter. Then sure. Go for it. But I would contend that Christ's Incarnation, and his humanity, is more to the heart of the matter, which is why a teleportation birth seems to be a shaky foundation to set the stage of the Incarnation. (Again, I'm not saying this is the intended Catholic teaching). But wos has sort of addressed it, at least enough to satisfy my questioning about it. And you've said yourself it's a bit of speculation. We can let it pass.

2) The Scriptures are literally the teaching of the Apostles. That's what they gave us. And I agree that the Bible doesn't have to teach us everything, but I think it's fair to at least say that those things we learn outside of the Bible, if ever they contradict or undermine what the Apostles passed down to us in the Bible, ought to let the Scriptures hold sway over them.
Absolutely!.... The Bible is part of what the Apostles gave us!
But even the Bible tells us to hold to everything -- whether preached or written (2 Thess 2:15).
And that persons without this stability are likely to twist Scripture into wrong meanings (2 Peter 3:15-16).
And the Bible tells us to cling to the Apostolic teaching by clinging to the Church

This is why the stuff that I am babbling almost mindlessly about sounds a lot like what Augustine wrote. We both cling to the same Church.
==============================================

The core of Christianity is Christ, of course. Three points:
1) That by Christ's Incarnation, humanity was restored with the Father.
2) That by Christ's death on the Cross, the Lamb of God gives us His own Flesh and Blood for our salvation.
3) That by Christ's resurrection and ascension, we know that we will rise again.

Mary is not superfluous to this great work. Her life and gifts magnify what God has done [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NASB](Luke 1:46).


When we learn the Church's faith about Mary and come to know her in our lives, we know Christ more deeply as well.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 37666
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Del » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:45 pm

Jocose wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:59 pm
ATTN:

THE ORTHODOX VIEW ON MARY IS VERY VERY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE RC VIEW ON MARY

THAT IS ALL

CARRY ON.
Not so "very much" different. Our faith comes from the same Apostolic root. We share the same Fathers.

But the East has some very different language to describe Mary, compared to the West. Like looking at the same mountain from different directions.

For example, Theotokos v. "The Mother of God."
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21866
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Re: Mary Alone

Post by Thunktank » Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:09 pm

Del wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:45 pm
Jocose wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:59 pm
ATTN:

THE ORTHODOX VIEW ON MARY IS VERY VERY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE RC VIEW ON MARY

THAT IS ALL

CARRY ON.
Not so "very much" different. Our faith comes from the same Apostolic root. We share the same Fathers.

But the East has some very different language to describe Mary, compared to the West. Like looking at the same mountain from different directions.

For example, Theotokos v. "The Mother of God."
It's more a different perspective. An "eastern" perspective which goes beyond language alone. The difference in language is directly related to the differences in theology, culture, history, experience, philpsophy, place and time. The question is whether or not the Orthodox and Catholic beliefs concerning the Theotokos are compatible in the same faith or not. The only way to know this is if it can be demonstrated to be or not to be. Simply being "different" is not a good judge of rightness or compatibility.

Having experienced both, for what it's worth, it really does seem dramatically different in many ways to the point that God himself takes on a different feeling between the two. This begs the question, does God appear differently to the various local churches? Are those differences in perspective variations of the same thing? For example, the immaculate conception as taught by the Latin tradition has no equal in the Orthodox tradition because original sin is defined differently.

Of course, I have also experienced the Baptist/Evangelical view of Mary. Different yet again. To pray to Mary there just might be a sin of the heart for real for those believers. It is so inherent to that belief that a prayer to Mary is taking away from God that which is due Him alone, because they do not have the same prayer culture that includes the same perspective that separates the role of created and creator as the Catholic and Orthodox churches do.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

“I grew up in a church with Ned Flanders. Down to the mustache. But so did a bunch of people I assume, which makes it so fun-diddly-unny.” -tuttle

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 19383
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Mary Alone

Post by wosbald » Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:10 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:04 pm
[…]

1) If maintaining Mary's virginity is the heart of the matter. Then sure. Go for it. But I would contend that Christ's Incarnation, and his humanity, is more to the heart of the matter, which is why a teleportation birth seems to be a shaky foundation to set the stage of the Incarnation. …

[…]
Leaving aside terminological wranglings over "teleportation", the deeper issue seems to be over attributing a "miraculous" character to the Birth. Though I'm not especially knowledgable in this area, I would think that the partisans of this view would, rather than its miraculous character, insist on its "originary" character as being a mode of Birth proper to Man in his original integrity (in his Prelapsarian state). Which is to say, a mode of birth which is natural-though-unfallen — as passing through the birth canal without opening/wounding it — rather than as a miraculous mode which bypasses natural channels. This would also seem to account for Mary's not being subject to labor pains.
"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

Post Reply