The Church Fathers- Mary: Ever Virgin

The Church Fathers ^ | 120AD-450AD

[bkaycee]

Not my point. My point is That JESUS directed us to PRAY to the Father, not saints or angels.

[Iscool]

It’s all clarified in his tagline

You obviously don't understand my tagline...But just to ease your mind, I'll tell you...

I know the Trinity exhists...Do I completely understand it??? No...But I believe it...I know it...

Therefore, I don't understand all that I know...

I know what Jesus said is true...Do I (or anyone) understand all of it??? No...But I know it's true...

[Mad Dawg]

False. You copied SOME of what I posted.

[Iscool]

You seem to be creating turbulence when there is none. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary mothered God the Father. She mothered the Christ Child, who is God; hence she is referred to as the Mother of God.

Who is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, the Father or the Son???

[Iscool]

As one can tell by the formation of the plural, stigma and stigmata are Greek words.

So why use Greek in an English sentence when there is an English translation for it???

Just as Paul said, why use an unknown tongue in the presence of those who don't understand the tongue??? It certainly doesn't edify anyone you're adressing...

And as it turns out, stigma or stigmata are very poor descriptions of the event...

-a mark of shame or discredit : stain

Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Wounds would be a far better translation that Stigmata...

[Mad Dawg]

Theology has a jargon. A conversation of almost 2000 years duration will develop that jargon. People who take part in that conversation as listeners will tend to use and adopt the jargon. Did you really not know what was meant?

Further, some of us do not go to dictionaries of current usage for our words. We think they impoverish the language. Your reference to the modern use of stigma is an example. Thomas uses τυπος to refer to the 'print' of the nails and Paul refers to στιγματα to refer to the same thing. so "wound" would not convey what "stigma" conveys to those who have been discussing theses things for a while. "Mark" would be better.

The need for some acquaintance with the ways of language over time. also shows in your startling interpretation of the wrenched out of context phrase "the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary."

My Greek service book has

...και σαρκωθρντα εκ Πνευματος Αγιου καιΜαριας της Παρτηενου ...
... and was made flesh by/of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin...

The text of the old Mass is
Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine.

Since 'ex' has a sense of "out of" there's a hint here that the Holy Spirit made IHS 'out of' Mary as one might make a desk 'out of' wood. And then one might say, "Whom was that made by and what's it made of?" and get the answer, "By Iscool, of wood."

If you think about all the meanings and uses of "of" and of the genitive case there are plenty of ways to look at the text you excerpted without thinking that the Holy Spirit is "of" the Virgin Mary anymore than God is "of" me, though He is in some sense "my God," as even the Psalmist says.

One reason to develop the linguistic skills of grammar,logic, and rhetoric is precisely to avoid wasting time on silly and improbable interpretations of texts torn from their context.

[Mad Dawg]

So, the first material was there.... why?

We have discussed -- in this thread, I believe -- this matter at length.

[Mad Dawg]

John 14:12 (RSV) Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

Do we agree that Mary believed in Jesus? If so, then the plain meaning of the text is that she will do the works that he did and greater works.

The works that Jesus did include signs and miracles. Signs and miracles are not excplicitly excluded in this passage. Therefore it seems that Jesus said that members of the set of people who believe in him would do miracles. Mary is a member of that set.

Therefore Jesus said Mary would do miracles.

Q.E.D.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your question, dear brother in Christ!

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45

The tomb was indeed empty. But the resurrected body is not exactly the same as the physical body: it is glorious, powerful, spiritual and not corrupt.

After the Resurrection, Jesus chose when to reveal Himself and appeared inside a locked room. He also showed His wounds and ate so that they would know His body was actually resurrected:

And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. - John 20:14

And it came to pass, that, while they communed [together] and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. - Luke 24:15-16

Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them [his] hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. - John 20:19-20

And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them [his] hands and [his] feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took [it], and did eat before them. - Luke 24:40-43

And Jesus' natural body (before the resurrection) was not always subjected to physical laws:

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. - Matthew 14:25

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. - John 8:59

Which brings me back to the subtext of your question, i.e. Mary's part in Jesus' resurrection body.

In my view, her part, if any, in His resurrection body is unrevealed in Scripture, unsearchable by empirical tests and therefore, irrelevant.

Since Jesus was not conceived like any mere mortal, there is no Scriptural warrant to believe that He did or did not inherit traits from Mary.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

A mere mortal's DNA has something like 99% in common with a chimpanzee and 35% in common with a daffodil. And it contains junk.

In creating a physical body for Himself, especially considering His purpose (Hebrews, Isaiah 53, Psalms 22) - God could have "programmed" it anyway He wanted. He could have planted a specially created fertilized egg. Indeed, His DNA might have been a closer match to Adam, David, etc. Or He could have "programmed" only half of it into one of Mary's eggs.

Either way Mary was His physical mother and nurtured Him, no doubt loved Him, hallowed Him and was crushed by His brutal death on the Cross.

And Jesus made it a point to see to her well being on earth thereafter:

Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home]. - John 19:27

Still we cannot say whether any part of Jesus' physical body on the Cross contained any traits from Mary, i.e. that she had a part in His physical body. Much less can we say that any part of His resurrected body contains inherited physical traits at all.

God's Name is I AM.

[Mad Dawg]

I have to say that I thought calling some of our antagonists (in the non-pejorative sense) "Nestorian" at first struck me as "reaching" a bit.

In the past 24 hours or so I'm getting that the rejection, in fact the suspicion, of the "Fathers" means that a lot of our interlocutors are going over the ground they've already trod and trying to have the arguments they've already settled, -- without the benefit of of the careful and passionate investigation done by our forebears. So maybe "proto-Nestorian" is not unfair.

I wouldn't immediately jump on Quix for being a docetist -- because he, I think wisely, used paradox to express his conceptual balking at the idea of the hypostatic union. "Role playing -- for real" were his words, or something similar.

That kind of thing MAY turn out to be docetism in the last analysis, but I think it's too unformed yet to be judged.

To you, Brother Quix, I'd say that you used the word "logically" Or "logical" about the problem of the godhead being in the Jesus the Christ.

TO which I think anybody who has the least glimpse of the wonder of it all would have to say, "Yeah, BABY!" as he shook his head. It strains the skull sutures, don't it?

My own personal take on much of the Nicene Creed or the Chalcedonian Definition is, "Oh. Definitely. Yes. Right. Sure. And what the heck does that mean?"

But, MY way if 'using' them is as diagnostics. I mean that if I find myself making an argument which can be shown to contradiction one of the 'clauses' of these things, then I'm going to do some adjusting and rethinking on my argument.

And I think I've told you how in some conversation of which I remember only the affection and what I am about to recount, and not the subject at all, I said to my professor, "You're dividing the person!"
And he said back, "No I'm not! You're confounding the natures!"
And then we both laughed.

But the serious point is that we both acknowledged Chalcedon as not only setting limits or blazing trails, but also as giving us a standard vocabulary so that we would stay more or less on the same page and be at least a little clear about what we agreed on, so that we could zero in more efficiently on the matter of disagreement.

"Your side" sometimes seem to think we have sold ourselves into slavery to tradition. We sometimes think we are standing on the shoulders of giants who stand on the shoulders of yet other giants and so on back to guys who knew Jesus or the Apostles or guys who knew the Apostles, AND who were reading the Bible when it was still individual scrolls, and hearing the stories before they were written down.

[Mad Dawg]

Why did you not ping Quix in an post which quoted him and objected to what he said?

[Mr. K]

wow- 2200 posts on whether Mary had sex with her husband...

TGhis is the stupidest thread yet

Does it make any difference?

Would Jesus WANT you to be talking about his mom this way? Isn’t there something important you sould be doing all of you)

[Mad Dawg]

Well, actually, parts of the thread have been useful. I think we're demonstrating that Mariology is related to Christology and Trinitarian thought.

We've also surfaced questions about vocation (as in Mary's Vocation to be Mother of the Lord), the resurrection body, time v. eternity, and maybe more.

The question of whether an experience of God and a relationship with Him could be so intense and satisfying that one no longer thought about coitus has not come up. But it's not an insignificant question.

Yeah there's been only a pennyworth of light to an intolerable deal of heat, but, hey! It's Free Republic. Who expected more?

[papertyger]

Please explain why you would give someone credit for “wisely” employing a paradox when such a one has repeatedly demonstrated little to no recognition of mutual exclusivity in matters most mundane.

[Running On Empty]

Hey, that’s really good, Iscool. :-)

Now I understand all that I didn’t know about your tagline. :-)

God bless.

[Mad Dawg]

Because:

- I am a wonderful human being?
- You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?
- A soft answer turneth away wrath?
- I am a wimp?
- Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, “I will repay.”
- Because I think the use of paradox in expressing the inexpressible is often wise and was in this case?
- Because when people make me crazy, about once a decade I conclude that might just possibly, at least in part, be MY problem — perfect though I almost am, almost?
- Because I want to take a nap and if people got angry that would mess up my plans?

[Mad Dawg]

Faith and Love seem to me to come before understanding. I think this is fine.

[stfassisi]

“”To you, Brother Quix, I’d say that you used the word “logically” Or “logical” about the problem of the godhead being in the Jesus the Christ.””

I think Fulton Sheen might help you understand this ,quix.

From Fulton Sheen’s Love is Triune
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2463497/posts

“God’s thought is not like ours. It is not multiple. God does not think one Thought, or one Word, one minute and another the next. Thoughts are not born to die and do not die to be reborn in the mind of God. All is present to Him at once. In Him there is only one Word. He has no need of another....It is well to remember that God has one Idea, and that Idea is the totality of all Truth. That Thought, or Word, is infinite and equal to Himself, unique and absolute, first-born of the Spirit of God; a Word which tells what God is; a Word from which all human words have been derived, and of which created things are merely the broken syllables or letters; a Word which is the source of all the Science and Art in the world.....The Infinite Thought of God is called not only a Word—to indicate that it is the Wisdom of God—but It is also called a Son, because it has been generated or begotten. The Thought or the Word of God does not come from the outside world; it is born in His Nature in a much more perfect way than the thought of “justice” is generated by my spirit. In the language of Sacred Scripture: What, says the Lord thy God, shall I, that bring children to the birth, want power to bring them forth: Shall I, that give life to the womb, want strength to open it?” (Isaiah 66:9) The ultimate Source of all generation or birth is God, Whose Word is born of Him, and therefore the Word is called a Son. Just as in our own human order, the principle of all generation is called the Father, so, too, in the Trinity the principle of spiritual generation is called the Father, and the one generated is called the Son, because He is the perfect image and Resemblance of the Father. If an earthly father can transmit to his son all the nobility of his character and all the fine traits of his life, how much more so can the Heavenly Father communicate to His own Eternal Son all the nobility, the perfection, and the Eternity of His Being! God the Father is related to God the Son as the Eternal Thinker is related to His Eternal Thought.”

“Divine Life is an endless rhythm of three in oneness: Three Persons in one Nature. If God had no Son, He would not be a Father; if He were an individual Unity, He could not love until He had made something less than Himself. No one is good unless He gives. If He did not give to the highest way by generation, He would not be Good, and if He were not Good, He would be Terror. Before the world began, God was Good in Himself, because He eternally begot a Son. There is no act in God which is not God Himself. Thus, God is the eternal vortex of love, which is ever in blissful activity because He is Three, and yet One because proceeding from one Nature which is God. Here is the White Source of all love whence comes to us all its straggling rays. Here alone is the Source, the Stream, and the Sea of all love. All fatherhood, motherhood, sonship, espousals, friendship, wedded love, patriotism, instinct, attraction, all interaction, and generation, is in some faint measure a picture of God. Father and mother in their unity constitute a complete principle of generation, and the child born of this principle is attached to the parents by a spirit: the spirit of the family. This spirit does not proceed uniquely from the love of parents for their children, but from the reciprocity of their affection. The spirit of love in parents is at once desire, pity, tenderness, bearing all things, suffering all things for the children. In the children, it is an offering such as the birds make to the branches in the springtime. The spirit of the family is as necessary to the family in generation, as the Holy Spirit is to the love in Father and Son.

Three in One, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Three Persons in One God; One in essence with distinction of Persons—such is the Mystery of the Trinity, such is the Inner Life of God. Just as I am, I know, and I love, and yet I am one nature; just as the three angles of a triangle do not make three triangles, but one; just as the power, light, and heat of the sun do not make three suns, but one; as water, air, and steam are all manifestations of the one substance, H[2]O; as the form, color, and perfume of the rose do not make three roses, but one; as our life, our intellect, and our will do not make three substances, but one; as 1 x 1 x 1 does not equal 3, but 1; so, too, in some much more mysterious way, there are Three Persons in God yet only one God.”

[Quix]

Your posts, including this one I’m responding to . . .

merely persist in DEMONSTRATING

that you didn’t understand what I wrote—evidently—AT ALL.

[Quix]

INDEED.

Fer sure.