Song of songs

…How does this even makes sense? Why does everything have to be allegorical?
And fifth council says nothing about it even, it just anathemizes Theodoret for Nestorianism

Where did I say everything has to be allegorical? The Church teaches that things are literal, as an example: the very real existence of Adam and Eve.

JUST for Nestorianism? You realize having a specific view on things affects everything else, right?

I don't know, ask the Holy Spirit.

Have you left your reading comprehension at the school table? I said that it mentions subject of Nestorianism. It doesnt mention song of songs.
Article on newadvent isnt the Holy Spirit.

"Furthermore he anathematized Theodore and condemned his writings and those of Theodoret and Ibas"

papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum05.htm

Writings = Teachings

The Church is the Holy Spirit, and I hope you aren't Orthodox, because you must submit to this council as well, and you have zero excuse to endorse a literal interpretation.

…I'm calling bishop Barron

I am Orthodox and you have provided nothing but some article on NewAdvent. Generic Anathema on Theodoret was about his Nestorian teachings. This is what I read in decrees of the council.
You do realize that opinions of Origen, who was ALSO anathemised were used by church fathers, including Basil the Great? Was St. Basil a heretic?
And no, I dont even care about the subject, be it one way or another. What I DO care about is screeching about "muh heresy" every time here and there.

It is about erotic love in a literal sense, but this used as a vehicle for an allegory, which is the primary intended meaning.

The article is a Catholic Encyclopedia article. The authors were experts, and you can't dismiss what's said there out of hand just on account of you being Eastern Orthodox without providing contrary evidence.

Anyway, whatever you are reading of Constantinople II is probably not the complete acts (or rather what remains of the acts). This blog post has more detailed info about the condemnation of Theodore for his opinion about Song of Songs. It even links the Latin source. I tried to check the source, but the Hathitrust website is unusable on mobile devices.

catholicbiblestudent.com/2011/01/was-theodore-of-mopsuestia-song-of-songs.html

Just to quote some of the relevant portions.

There are links to Migne and Mansi provided in the text you can follow up on if you can read Greek or Latin.

No if this book were literal God would be guilty of writing smut. It doesn't work like that, it's an allegorical book and this is the ancient interpretation of it.

Why is a man loving his wife's body smut?
I think you have preconceived notions of who God is, and it clouds your perception. Come unto him as a little child.
God made sex. God told Adam and Eve to have sex.
This hatred of heterosexuality makes the homosexuality within the Catholic Church not shocking at all.

Hebrews 13:4

…you weren't really brought by storks, you know…

Every time

Sex is a good thing from God. It's pleasurable for more reasons than just having kids.
dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/like-a-rutting-buck/

It's not just Catholics it's the bible. They basically say sex in marriage is the least sinful way to contain a sin still suggesting even that is somewhat sinful if it's for purposes other than reproduction.

You're in anathema to the Council dude, there is no question about it.

Unless you're willing to call Theodore a Church Father, you will find no patristic support for the literalist interpretation either.

And if you defy the Council, the very same council that defeated Nestorianism and defined the hypostatic union, you are in anathema.

Catholics and the Orthodox, and every Church Father, for there IS NO CHURCH FATHER that supports it.

How about just use the Holy Ghost and your own brain? Any dummy can plainly see that “church fathers” had various conflicting theologies over a thousand year period.

Are you a nestorian? This is the exact same council that proclaimed Jesus Christ is true man and true God. Seriously, if you reject this council, you run into enough complications even Steve Anderson can call you a heretic.

But once again, you have to look at how the Fathers interpreted it. None of them saw it as literal

The Bible says husband and wife should have sex every day and not stop unless they agree for a short time, and then do it again. And not because sex is a sin. Sex outside of marriage is a sin.

The Bible is higher authority than men. As evidenced by our current "leaders" in many denominations, including Catholics.

Pic related.
This thread is further evidence that people on this board cannot into moderation and balanced opinion.
Fortunately I post less and less here and maybe finally abandon this place altogether and continue my lively participation in church life.

Attached: f03d33430b8c01e5aeee6be01d0f19ba478c57e853e677ef905d857449f65ed8.jpg (250x250, 14.78K)

I'm the same guy btw. I don't know why did this IP changed

Read your bible please…

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring,

each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

Do not deprive each other

except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

You read yours. That is not saying sex is a sin.

It's Like you cant read…

Catholics have monomania about sex. It's why they become fags. It's icky, and muh fathers say it is bad. The Bible says "HAVE SEX WITH YOUR WIFE AND ENJOY IT" but because some Catholic man said something, they autistically contort those words to mean "NO, NO, ONLY HAVE SEX FOR KIDS, BECAUSE MUD IDOLATRY"

"MUH VENERATION FOR MARY THOUGH"

Jesus save us from this autism.

AUTISM

You cannot read.

noun: concession; plural noun: concessions

1.
a thing that is granted, especially in response to demands; a thing conceded.
"the strikers returned to work having won some concessions"
synonyms: compromise, allowance, exception

Yes, that's impressive. A dictionary. Well done.

He is expressing his wishes because it is easier for a man to serve God if he doesn't have a wife. But sex is a good thing from God, as is a wife.

Quotations to follow.

Notice how he points out that its to control a satans temptation, and he also says he wishes they were like him, and paul was a unmarried man who did not have sex with anyone at all or sex in general.

Genesis 2:18, 24
The LORD God also said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper."

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Proverbs 5:18-19 & 18:22
Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

Ecclesiastes 5:18 & 9:7-9
Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.

Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.

Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.

Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

Romans 12:6-9
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

1 Corinthians 7:7
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Autism. I already explained it. You literally cannot read anything but muh authorized father people, and probably have catholicanswers.com pulled up on a tab.

I expect mods will delete this thread too because they are Catholic and have bias. They deleted the last thread about sex and marriage. Then they wonder why this place is so dead lately.

Attached: 1415001977489.jpg (380x250, 26.86K)

answer this simple question,

Why does paul wish they were like him?

Also you are literally spamming this thread in autistic anger man.

also to add, im not catholic
polite sage

Because a wife and family become priority.

Pay special attention to I WISH/WOULD/WILL and EVERY MAN HATH HIS PROPER GIFT OF GOD" and Paul's gift from God is to serve Him without the need for a wife. God gave Paul his gift. He was not called'' to have a wife.

Most of us are not Paul. Most of us have a different calling according to what God wills. And God does not say anywhere, nor does anyone under His submission, that sex within marriage is a sin.

Coffee. And I'm not spamming. Be more appreciative that I want you to be correct rather than to err.

That is exceedingly conceited. But ok just cause im tired of arguing with you. Sure you are correct what ever.

Nay. I am sure of the Bible, not of myself.

You are pretty cringe worthy from reading your post.

Cannot just be assumed at this point that SOS threads are bait threads? Because this is what happens every single time.

You could always venture to Reddit if you like forced opinions. No arguments at all there. Just hugbox.

I would prefer actual discussions. We used to have those here years ago.

But you dont converse properly, you just yell via text and post bad memes.

I posted a ton of Scripture to support my argument. I first posted a link.

People have yet to come back with anything besides "nuh uh" and quote the same thing I quoted, but say it means something totally different.

Ya you spammed scripture, used random red bold, called everyone autistic and used the dumb pepe with gun to wojak head meme.

Oh ya and the random insulting of Catholicism not even just criticizing just insulting.

I can post a fedora next if it would make you feel better. :^)

And I did not spam anything. I listed Scripture that speaks to each other in many different books of many generations. The message is the same.

And a man loving his wife is an allegory to Christ and the church, per Ephesians 5:22-27, but does not change the point blank meaning which is in clear words. To dismiss the literal meaning is deceit or ignorance. The meaning has never changed. When and if you read Ephesians 5:27, consider Ecclesiastes 9:8.

Yes, there is allegory. And as marriage on earth is to be compared to heaven and eternity with Him, so is sex within it. Heaven is paradise. Bliss. Sex in marriage has meaning beyond children. It is a gift.

You must not have been here long.

Yes a lot of Catholics here can be annoying and equally insulting but that's no excuse to stoop to their level. Fedora woulda been less annoying tbh.

So what you’re saying is that I need councils to determine what I already believe?

This is absolutely besides the point, the topic at hand is whether a literalist interpretation of the Song of Songs is valid. It is not, and it never has been.

If you throw out councils, you need to re-justify what you believe from the ground up. There is a reason why the Anderson clique keeps falling into modalism, if you reject the hypostatic union, which is probably one of the most well-defined theological definitions in the True Religion, you will have people falling for Arianism constantly.

again I'm not catholic

It is.
It has been.

Attached: 1457340618477-0.gif (300x320, 6.65M)

From what Church?

From what Church Father?

From which Jew?

There has never been a Church that has endorsed the literalist SoS outside of Nestorians, and post-Reformation Protestants.

There has been no Jewish teachings about SoS being literal, and there has been no Church Father teachings on SoS being literal either.

Bible

Where does the Bible say SoS is literal?

Hosea 12:10 affirms that the Holy Spirit will speak through metaphors, so where do you get permission to teach literally?

You are pretty childish for some one who assumes his knowledge is error free and the true word of the bible. Especially when you say you are trying to correct errancy rather than inflate your ego.

see
Not going to repeat that post. I've spoken several times already.

You posted something nobody cares about. To a person that didn't even reply to you. Sperg elsewhere.

Permission to have martial sex in the Bible HAS NOTHING to do with the literalist interpretation of SoS.

So what do Solomon's wife's boobs stand as a metaphor for?
I'm aware of the metaphors of the bride of Christ, never do they mention boobs and gorgeous tummy.

Uhh he did respond to me twice wew you are blind

The Church's teachings, that feed the faithful. You recall that the faithful are called to be "like children" and Christ called His disciples "children", multiple times right?

Additionally, "wife's boobs"…I mean, this HAS NOTHING to do with justifying a literalist interpretation of SoS, try harder.

That means innocence, and also whole belief and faith. Are you insinuating that knowing the body parts of your wife and doing lovey dovey things means it's not innocent? Innocence is the absence of sin or guilt. There is nothing guilty or sinful about loving your wife.

Now you presume to know what Scripture truly means?

The rest of your post is inane and not worth addressing. The Jews knew from the beginning that SoS was allegorical, the Church always knew that is was allegorical.

I don't know if you're Jew or Christian, but your teaching is new and unfounded.

I presume to know what a child is. A child thinks as a child. When I instruct a child as a parent or adult, that child believes me wholly because I am a person of authority. God is our authority, our Father.

Do tell.

I dislike you genuinely, each of your messages are so painful to read I feel like your ego is so inflated its pouring through my screen.

How many IDs do you have in this thread?

Just the one.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Who gave you the authority to pronounce what Jesus Christ truly meant?

The topic at hand is whether the SoS is literal, you keep bringing up conjugal rights which has…nothing to do with whether the SoS is meant to be understood as literal! Circular argument upon circular argument.

This is a nice thread

Only got 1 I'd by up isn't dynamic.

Is this board dying? Hopefully
Are you giving us another reason to believe it is dying if you are banned? Honestly, uhhh.
I mean look at this

This means that they have to have sex if one of them demands it to the other
Not
This is why personal interpretation is bad. You're literally saying that you, minority view 00.001%, have the guidance of the holy spirit to interpret the Bible, and everyone else is wrong. Nobody else has been given the holy spirit but you. That's the only way you can claim a textual interpretation that nobody else has(In this case, your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7)

Read ephesians 5. They're the same topic. Marriage is a type of the relation of christ and the church, which is why christ is often referred to as bridegroom, why the baptismal robe is called a wedding garment, why the eucharist can be termed as a wedding feast, why christ's first miracle was a transfiguration of water to wine at a wedding, and why there are many OT references chastising israel for idolatry calling it a "harlot".

It's not a matter of either/or. Read it as both; doing so is how you can catch a glimpse of what paul is calling a mystery in eph. 5.

as man is made in God's image, reflecting His glory - so marriage is a mirror to that greater family, the three persons of God

and in that intimacy of a couple knowing each other, so we see a shadow of both the the Union of those Three Persons, and a representation of Christ's love for His bride; the church - giving all of Himself for that which He cherishes