 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Happy Birthday Mary! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 5:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | Apology accepted, Selah. No prob.
But Jo-anne, what have you contributed here except repeating the same thing a few times?
Read what I posted. I'm not the one repeating the ever-virgin part. I'm pointing to the meaning of "virgin" in the first place; without which nothing else has meaning.
Read. Think. Ponder. Pray.
What does Scripture have for us to learn from, and grow in the Lord.
(Were physical virginity the point, you would be too far gone, "mom." But that's not the point. Catch that train.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
I get much better input from people in person than I do on this thread! | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's see...
If Joseph and Mary DIDN'T ever have sex, then I feel sorry for Joseph and Mary. If they DID, then I feel sorry for POW. So whom shall I feel sorry for? Joseph or POW?
I choose POW (and everybody else whose theology requires Mary's perpetual virginity).
I'm coming up now hunny! Pull the covers down!
Gotta go friends,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Google-searching for "Piper" and "Mary" I found this by Elisabeth Elliot.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter25.html
(The Essence of Femininity--A Personal Perspective, Elisabeth Elliot)
quote:
The gospel story begins with the Mystery of Charity. A young woman is visited by an angel, given a stunning piece of news about becoming the mother of the Son of God. Unlike Eve, whose response to God was calculating and self-serving, the virgin Mary's answer holds no hesitation about risks or losses or the interruption of her own plans. It is an utter and unconditional self-giving: "I am the Lord's servant. . . . May it be to me as you have said" (Luke 1:38). This is what I understand to be the essence of femininity. It means surrender.{3}
Think of a bride. She surrenders her independence, her name, her destiny, her will, herself to the bridegroom in marriage. This is a public ceremony, before God and witnesses. Then, in the marriage chamber, she surrenders her body, her priceless gift of virginity, all that has been hidden. As a mother she makes a new surrender---it is her life for the life of the child. This is most profoundly what women were made for, married or single (and the special vocation of the virgin is to surrender herself for service to her Lord and for the life of the world).
The gentle and quiet spirit of which Peter speaks, calling it "of great worth in God's sight" (1 Peter 3:4), is the true femininity, which found its epitome in Mary, the willingness to be only a vessel, hidden, unknown, except as Somebody's mother. This is the true mother-spirit, true maternity, so absent, it seems to me, in all the annals of feminism. "The holier a woman is," wrote Leon Bloy, "the more she is a woman."
Femininity receives. It says, "May it be to me as you have said." It takes what God gives---a special place, a special honor, a special function and glory, different from that of masculinity, meant to be a help. In other words, it is for us women to receive the given as Mary did, not to insist on the not-given, as Eve did.
Perhaps the exceptional women in history have been given a special gift---a charism---because they made themselves nothing. I think of Amy Carmichael, for example, another Mary, because she had no ambition for anything but the will of God. Therefore her obedience, her "May it be to me," has had an incalculably deep impact in the twentieth century. She was given power, as was her Master, because she made herself nothing.
I would be the last to deny that women are given gifts that they are meant to exercise. But we must not be greedy in insisting on having all of them, in usurping the place of men. We are women, and my plea is Let me be a woman, holy through and through, asking for nothing but what God wants to give me, receiving with both hands and with all my heart whatever that is. No arguments would ever be needed if we all shared the spirit of the "most blessed among women."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | It is THIS feminine-charism that is the model for the whole church. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne: Pow, What have I contributed here? Just my heart. God Bless.
Tom: Slam dunk (in love of course). Thanks Jo-Anne.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Why is that a "slam dunk."
I thought Elizabeth Elliot was articulate. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Google-searching for "Piper" and "Mary" I found this by Elisabeth Elliot.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter25.html
(The Essence of Femininity--A Personal Perspective, Elisabeth Elliot)
quote:
The gospel story begins with the Mystery of Charity. A young woman is visited by an angel, given a stunning piece of news about becoming the mother of the Son of God. Unlike Eve, whose response to God was calculating and self-serving, the virgin Mary's answer holds no hesitation about risks or losses or the interruption of her own plans. It is an utter and unconditional self-giving: "I am the Lord's servant. . . . May it be to me as you have said" (Luke 1:38). This is what I understand to be the essence of femininity. It means surrender.{3}
Think of a bride. She surrenders her independence, her name, her destiny, her will, herself to the bridegroom in marriage. This is a public ceremony, before God and witnesses. Then, in the marriage chamber, she surrenders her body, her priceless gift of virginity, all that has been hidden. As a mother she makes a new surrender---it is her life for the life of the child. This is most profoundly what women were made for, married or single (and the special vocation of the virgin is to surrender herself for service to her Lord and for the life of the world).
The gentle and quiet spirit of which Peter speaks, calling it "of great worth in God's sight" (1 Peter 3:4), is the true femininity, which found its epitome in Mary, the willingness to be only a vessel, hidden, unknown, except as Somebody's mother. This is the true mother-spirit, true maternity, so absent, it seems to me, in all the annals of feminism. "The holier a woman is," wrote Leon Bloy, "the more she is a woman."
Femininity receives. It says, "May it be to me as you have said." It takes what God gives---a special place, a special honor, a special function and glory, different from that of masculinity, meant to be a help. In other words, it is for us women to receive the given as Mary did, not to insist on the not-given, as Eve did.
Perhaps the exceptional women in history have been given a special gift---a charism---because they made themselves nothing. I think of Amy Carmichael, for example, another Mary, because she had no ambition for anything but the will of God. Therefore her obedience, her "May it be to me," has had an incalculably deep impact in the twentieth century. She was given power, as was her Master, because she made herself nothing.
I would be the last to deny that women are given gifts that they are meant to exercise. But we must not be greedy in insisting on having all of them, in usurping the place of men. We are women, and my plea is Let me be a woman, holy through and through, asking for nothing but what God wants to give me, receiving with both hands and with all my heart whatever that is. No arguments would ever be needed if we all shared the spirit of the "most blessed among women."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Elizabeth Elliot:
"I think of Amy Carmichael, for example, another Mary, because she had no ambition for anything but the will of God. Therefore her obedience, her "May it be to me," has had an incalculably deep impact in the twentieth century. She was given power, as was her Master, because she made herself nothing."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | POW: Why is that a "slam dunk."
Tom: You insultingly blew Jo-Anne off and should have realized that from her response.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
POW: Why is that a "slam dunk."
Tom: You insultingly blew Jo-Anne off and should have realized that from her response.
Thanks for explaining, Tom.
Jo-anne, I wrote: "But Jo-anne, what have you contributed here except repeating the same thing a few times?"
All I was seeing was over-and-over was your mention of "the ever-virgin part."
And what I point to what I was looking for: the meaning of "virgin" in the first place; without which nothing else has meaning.
I didn't "blow (you) off" -- I criticized what you were doing. Rightly.
There is no edification, and no challenge for discipleship in saying "did"..."didn't"..."did"..."didn't"... over and over.
I bet you like Elizabeth Eliot. She has something there to share with all of us.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/12/2004 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | | But, Jo-anne, from all of your years, what do you have to share? Who are your prayer warriers? Selfless servants of Christ? | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 9/12/2004 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
But, Jo-anne, from all of your years, what do you have to share? Who are your prayer warriers? Selfless servants of Christ?
Sorry...packing! Following the checklist that Sisters gave me:
Extra socks, check
Back-bacon, check
CCM Bobby Hull Super Tack hockey skates, check
1976 Montreal Olympics sweater, check
Bobby Orr Victoriaville hockey stick, check
Molson, check
Red Maple Leaf flag, check
Ann Murray autographed picture, check
Bryan Adam's greatest hits, check
Michael J Fox video (betamax), check
"Gretzky Traded!!!" Edmonton Star issue, check
Mukluks, check
Snow Shoes, check
Whitehorse, the Yukon vacation brochures, check
Funny money with the Queen's picture on it, check
"America On Five Clichés a Day" guide book, check
On a more serious note though POW - I have much to share, and even more to learn.
Pressing on,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/13/2004 12:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
On a more serious note though POW - I have much to share, and even more to learn.
Pressing on,
Jo-Anne
Thanks.
Me too. That's one reason why I love the internet's ability to aid in collecting wisdom. I appreciate begin able to find Elizabeth Elliot's piece!
Lots to think about there. Lots to learn.
Have a nice trip!!!
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/13/2004 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW...So I'll ask once more...
quote:
let's cut to the chase... what must one do to go to heaven?
let's cut to the chase... what must one do to go to heaven???
quote:
No, Tigress. The only thing that matters is YOUR LIFE. Your "annuciations."
Your "yes" and your "no."
Will YOU TOO be the "...flower with the pure cluster that pours out divine sweetness, from which all who mystically drink will gather divine and saving joy?" (quoted above)
THAT'S the issue!!!
What??? You lost me...
an·nun·ci·a·tion ( P )
n.
The act of announcing.
An announcement; a proclamation.
Annunciation Christianity.
The angel Gabriel's announcement to the Virgin Mary of the Incarnation.
The feast celebrating this event.
March 25, the day on which this feast is observed.
You are saying the Only thing that matters in your life is What? you quote again;
quote:
The only thing that matters is YOUR LIFE. Your "annuciations."
No... the only thing that matters is your name written in the lambs book of life...and how do you get it in there!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/13/2004 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | I’ve had fun reading Orthodox and Catholic arguments for why the Greek for “until” in Mat. 1.25 should be understood as meaning “neither before nor after” and thus supporting the belief that Mary never had sex with Joseph. One site (correctly) noted that “the Greek conjunction eos (till)…while expressing what has occurred up to a certain period, leaves the future entirely aside,” but then (incorrectly) argued on this basis that the conjunction in Mat. 1.25 ought to be understood as "not until this important event, but still not after.”
True, there are many verses in which “until” describes a state of affairs which certainly remains unchanged after the moment or event in question. To say that a woman did not give birth to children until the day she died (a biblical example!) obviously cannot mean she gave birth after she died. But this just proves the point that the conjunction heos (until) itself says nothing about states of affairs subsequent to the event that marks the boundary (until she died, until he came, until you confess, etc.). The question of change is a contextual one, not a grammatical one. Sometimes “until” entails no change, and we can thank those who insist upon Mary’s perpetual virginity for examples of “until” being used in verses which contextually entail an unchanging state of affairs.
Unfortunately this doesn’t go very far at all in determining how Mat. 1.25 ought to be understood. For there are examples (too many to count) of “until” being used in verses which contextually entail a change in the state of affairs in question. Here are a few:
Mat 5.26 “You WON’T LEAVE jail until you pay all you owe” (at which time you WILL LEAVE)
Mat 10.11 “Stay there until you leave” (kinda obvious, eh?)
Mat 13.30 “Let the weeds and the wheat GROW TOGETHER until harvest” (at which time SEPARATE THEM)
Mat 13.33 “The KOG is like a woman who MIXES yeast in a bowl of flour until the yeast permeates the whole batch” (at which time she STOPS MIXING)
Mat 23.39 “You WILL NOT SEE ME until you learn to say ‘Blessed is he who…’” (at which time YOU WILL SEE ME).
2Th 2.7 “He will continue to restrain until he is taken out of the way”
Acts 1.8 “WAIT HERE in Jerusalem until you are clothed with power…” (at which time STOP WAITING)
Sometimes the future is left entirely open:
Rm 11.8 “This [Jewish opposition to the gospel] continues until today…” (it might and might not continue; Paul certainly worked to reverse that attitude and explicitly claimed that such hardening was reversible)
One could go on and on. Sometimes heos introduces an event or boundary marker after which no change in the preceding state of affairs takes place. But sometimes it introduces an event or boundary marker after which a change in the preceding state of affairs certainly takes place. And sometimes it leaves the question of changing states of affairs entirely open. What’s important to note is that the conjunction heos has nothing in itself to do with determining which use an author intends. That use is determined by context.
One has to ask what Matthew’s intention is in even mentioning this. And the answer isn’t far away. He mentions the conditions of Mary’s conception and carrying Jesus to make it clear that Joseph is not the origin of Jesus’ conception or existence. He had nothing whatsoever to do with it. That is Mathew’s concern. Whether or not you believe Mary THEN began having normal conjugal relations with her husband or not is determined by whether or not you can show contextually that Mary’s continued virginity is Mathew’s concern and, if it was, what point he makes with it. In my view there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Mary’s continued virginity was a concern of Mathew’s. It isn’t required to support what IS obviously Mathew’s point (Joseph’s non-involvement in JESUS’ conception). The passage is meant to say something about Joseph and Mary’s sexual relations with respect to JESUS and not with respect to MARY, her faith, or her devotion. Given Mathew’s concern and my disagreement with the theological tradition behind even believing Mary’s perpetual virginity is necessary, I assume Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal sexual relations after Jesus’ birth. And I say, Good for them!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/13/2004 5:56 AM (GMT -6) | | TOM/TGB...
Nice piece of work!!!
I would have said the same thing...but
wanted to see if someone was going to say it...AND
my greek is limited to the four word for 'love'...
I saw 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'..(twice) and had a Gyro once(I didn't like it)not crazy about the onions and cucumber sauce
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kublai Khan
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 9/13/2004 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | http://www.letusreason.org/RC5.htm
Luke 2:7 “And she brought forth her first born son.”
She brought forth her first born son.
Not her only born son.
John 2:12 “After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.”
distinguishes between brothers and disciples
1 Cor. 9:5 “do we not have a right to take with us a believing wife as do the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Peter.”
distinguishes between Jesus' brothers and Peter
Matthew
13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
talking about Jesus' family
1. carpenter's son (dad)
2. mary's son (mom)
3. brothers
4. sisters
5. own house
"Arrest the usual suspects." | | Back to Top | | |
|
JCF
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 9/13/2004 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | My understanding is that Joseph was an older man and widower. Being married at least once before Mary, would it not be conceivable that Jesus had older stepbrothers and stepsisters? | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 9/13/2004 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Into the ontological mystery of perpetual virginity, right? If virginity is somehow holier than marital sexual relations, then why did God create Eve?
Ummm, that's not why God created Eve. He created her to be a companion, to share in the love of the triune community of Father, Son, and Spirit, to be equal in spirituality, but also because the Father did not want Adam to be alone. The loving union is part of that design - a beautiful, God honouring union of spirit, soul and body. If anyone thinks that Mary remained a virgin, they'd be ignoring scripture, and Mary would definitely not have been the companion that God intended her to be. Witholding physical affection in a marriage is not God honouring. It robs both people of the blessing that God intended, and even more - causes harm to the marriage. Can you imagine God choosing Mary to be the mother of Jesus, knowing that she would likely never fulfill her husband's God given desires or needs? I don't think so.
I agree with John. I do not understand why some think that she would need to remain a virgin. It not only "dehumanizes her" (she becomes a Mary that we cannot relate to), but she also becomes a Mary that does not honour what God has declared wonderful, what he intended to be a blessing, and what is the most intimate relationship that we can possibly experience aside from our relationship with Him.
As far as virginity having a deeper spiritual meaning - I agree. I believe it does. There is a spiritual purity of heart. That is why I believe that someone may have engaged in premarital sex, and though they are no longer considered to be physically a virgin - they may experience the forgiveness of the Father, and miraculously "He remembers their sin no more" - "As far as the east is from the west" - in that regard they are spiritually a virgin in God's eyes.
'Nite and God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
I am sure learning things from this thread. I had no clue that many protestants believed Mary a life-long virgin. I love a book Jack Hayford wrote on Mary. I may be borrowing some of his thought here. It seems the worship of and extremeism around her life shuts out the rest of us from ever thinking God could do such a miraculous thing even with us! I've tried to say to my friends and family that the Mary miracle is huge and the one(s) God wants in our life DO NOT PALE in comparison to hers. The thought that God would live in us and have his being in us is soooo profound. Aren't we the Body Of Christ? Aren't we to become the "exact representation" of God?
Barry | | Back to Top | | |
|
JCF
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 9/13/2004 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
quote:
Originally posted by JCF
My understanding is that Joseph was an older man and widower. Being married at least once before Mary, would it not be conceivable that Jesus had older stepbrothers and stepsisters?
Where did this "understanding" come from?
If Mary had other boys and girls, Jesus would have had half-brothers and half-sisters. Mary is the only biological parent He had, you see.
Jesus couldn't have had any full brothers or sisters.
Being that Jesus was not biologically related to Joseph, Jesus couldn't have any half-brothers or half-sisters on that side of the family.
If Mary had more children then yes, they would be Jesus’ “half-brothers or half-sisters”. But, if Mary never had any more children, what’s to say that Jesus' siblings were not stepbrothers or stepsisters? It seems most likely that Joseph would have had children before he married Mary. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JCF
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 9/13/2004 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Kublai Khan
If Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage, was Jesus the son of Joseph?
No, no... your so funny.
As far as proof, well I have some old pictures.  | | Back to Top | | |
| 146 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|