OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 21, 2014, 10:54:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Joseph  (Read 3864 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« on: May 09, 2013, 01:25:49 PM »

Is there any information or books (Orthodox) which speaks in depth on the details of the husband of Mary, Joseph?

I have some faith struggles wondering how Mary and Joseph being husband and wife, NEVER had sexual relations, not even once.  As Jesus was raised by Joseph (learning carpentry), and obviously Mary & Joseph remained husband and wife in his childhood (found him in the temple together).... Also in the Gospel of John it was spoken, "This is Jesus son of Joseph..."  So obviously people knew of Joseph, even as Jesus was an adult.

So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
quietmorning
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,378


St. Photini


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2013, 01:28:13 PM »

**subscribed**

Logged

In His Mercy,
BethAnna
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,229


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2013, 01:29:40 PM »

Is there any information or books (Orthodox) which speaks in depth on the details of the husband of Mary, Joseph?

I have some faith struggles wondering how Mary and Joseph being husband and wife, NEVER had sexual relations, not even once.  As Jesus was raised by Joseph (learning carpentry), and obviously Mary & Joseph remained husband and wife in his childhood (found him in the temple together).... Also in the Gospel of John it was spoken, "This is Jesus son of Joseph..."  So obviously people knew of Joseph, even as Jesus was an adult.

So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.



I don't know of any books that deal with the subject you're asking about, but....didn't St. John of Kronstadt and his wife live "as brother and sister", i.e. without sexual relations, much to her consternation?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 01:30:23 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,955



« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2013, 01:34:30 PM »

Is there any information or books (Orthodox) which speaks in depth on the details of the husband of Mary, Joseph?

I have some faith struggles wondering how Mary and Joseph being husband and wife, NEVER had sexual relations, not even once.  As Jesus was raised by Joseph (learning carpentry), and obviously Mary & Joseph remained husband and wife in his childhood (found him in the temple together).... Also in the Gospel of John it was spoken, "This is Jesus son of Joseph..."  So obviously people knew of Joseph, even as Jesus was an adult.

So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.



As far as I can tell, the Church teaches that they were betrothed, not married.

I'd also heard it said that St. Joseph was very old.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2013, 01:35:12 PM »


So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.


The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

Now, St Joseph was a good Jew, he would have been brought up with a strong sense of the sacred. He would have been raised knowing the stories in scripture of people touching the Ark of the Covenant and suffering instant death. He would have also known that only the high priest dared enter the Holy of Holies of the Temple to offer the yearly sacrifice to the presence of God who "dwelt there". Undoubtedly at some stage St Joseph would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to realize the true meaning behind these images and stories from scripture, as well as the temple rituals.

Once the meaning of these became clear to him, how, then, could Joseph possibly consider marital relations with this woman, the living Tabernacle, the new Ark, the Holy of Holies, knowing that she has given birth to the Son of God? Not that sex is bad, evil or wrong between married couples, just as eating and cooking meat are not bad, evil, or wrong in themselves, but when put into service to God in the Temple, be it sacrificial animals, or, in the case of Mary who was dedicated to the Temple as a child, they became holy, and only the high priests could participate in the sacrifice. Christ Himself is the great and eternal High Priest, the "prince who eats bread before the Lord" (Ezekiel 44). Good man that he was, St Joseph would most likely have regarded himself as utterly unworthy to even be in the presence of such a treasure blessed and wholly sanctified by God, let alone consider sleeping with her.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 01:36:34 PM by LBK » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,229


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2013, 01:37:24 PM »


So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.


The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

Now, St Joseph was a good Jew, he would have been brought up with a strong sense of the sacred. He would have been raised knowing the stories in scripture of people touching the Ark of the Covenant and suffering instant death. He would have also known that only the high priest dared enter the Holy of Holies of the Temple to offer the yearly sacrifice to the presence of God who "dwelt there". Undoubtedly at some stage St Joseph would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to realize the true meaning behind these images and stories from scripture, as well as the temple rituals.

Once the meaning of these became clear to him, how, then, could Joseph possibly consider marital relations with this woman, the living Tabernacle, the new Ark, the Holy of Holies, knowing that she has given birth to the Son of God? Not that sex is bad, evil or wrong between married couples, just as eating and cooking meat are not bad, evil, or wrong in themselves, but when put into service to God in the Temple, be it sacrificial animals, or, in the case of Mary who was dedicated to the Temple as a child, they became holy, and only the high priests could participate in the sacrifice. Christ Himself is the great and eternal High Priest, the "prince who eats bread before the Lord" (Ezekiel 44). Good man that he was, St Joseph would most likely have regarded himself as utterly unworthy to even be in the presence of such a treasure blessed and wholly sanctified by God, let alone consider sleeping with her.



Well said!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2013, 02:13:15 PM »

The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

The Ark that bore the source of all Life brings death to undefiled touch?

I didn't know it was possible to squeeze that much contradiction, paradox, and mental gymnastics in one sentence... and it is equally absurd.

There are many things about the nativity and young years of Jesus that bother me. Such as to where the source of the story derives? Who knew the events and then transmitted them?

It's one of those moments you either have faith in the life and testimony of Jesus and his apostles, to include the faith given. Or you don't.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2013, 02:17:01 PM »

Is there any information or books (Orthodox) which speaks in depth on the details of the husband of Mary, Joseph?

I have some faith struggles wondering how Mary and Joseph being husband and wife, NEVER had sexual relations, not even once.  As Jesus was raised by Joseph (learning carpentry), and obviously Mary & Joseph remained husband and wife in his childhood (found him in the temple together).... Also in the Gospel of John it was spoken, "This is Jesus son of Joseph..."  So obviously people knew of Joseph, even as Jesus was an adult.

So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.


We are told, by the earliest Tradition (2nd century) that St. Joseph was a widower, and he married the Holy Theotokos as her protector, almost like an adoption (which Jewish law doesn't have).

We know that King David did not "know" the Shumanite woman he married, for different reasons.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2013, 02:18:24 PM »

The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

The Ark that bore the source of all Life brings death to undefiled touch?

I didn't know it was possible to squeeze that much contradiction, paradox, and mental gymnastics in one sentence... and it is equally absurd.

There are many things about the nativity and young years of Jesus that bother me. Such as to where the source of the story derives? Who knew the events and then transmitted them?
We are told St. Joseph's kin, including his begotten sons SS. James, Jude etc.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2013, 02:21:15 PM »

The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

The Ark that bore the source of all Life brings death to undefiled touch?

I didn't know it was possible to squeeze that much contradiction, paradox, and mental gymnastics in one sentence... and it is equally absurd.

There are many things about the nativity and young years of Jesus that bother me. Such as to where the source of the story derives? Who knew the events and then transmitted them?
We are told St. Joseph's kin, including his begotten sons SS. James, Jude etc.

Do you have source? I've never heard this.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2013, 02:28:45 PM »

We are told, by the earliest Tradition (2nd century) that St. Joseph was a widower, and he married the Holy Theotokos as her protector, almost like an adoption (which Jewish law doesn't have).

Esther 2:5-7 according to the 70 says that Mardochaeus brought up young Esther to be his wife:

Quote
Now there was a Jew in the city Susa, and his name was Mardochaeus, the son of Jairus, the son of Semeias, the son of Cisaeus, of the tribe of Benjamin; who had been brought a prisoner from Jerusalem, which Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had carried into captivity. And he had a foster child (παῖς θρεπτή), daughter of Aminadab his father’s brother, and her name was Esther; and when her parents were dead, he brought her up for a wife for himself (ἐπαίδευσεν αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ εἰς γυναῖκα): and the damsel was beautiful.

The Masoretic text differs:

Quote
Now there was a Jew in the citadel of Susa whose name was Mordecai son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite. Kish had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives carried away with King Jeconiah of Judah, whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried away. Mordecai had brought up Hadassah, that is Esther, his cousin, for she had neither father nor mother; the girl was fair and beautiful, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai adopted her as his own daughter.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 02:32:13 PM by Romaios » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2013, 02:33:26 PM »

The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

The Ark that bore the source of all Life brings death to undefiled touch?

I didn't know it was possible to squeeze that much contradiction, paradox, and mental gymnastics in one sentence... and it is equally absurd.

There are many things about the nativity and young years of Jesus that bother me. Such as to where the source of the story derives? Who knew the events and then transmitted them?
We are told St. Joseph's kin, including his begotten sons SS. James, Jude etc.

Do you have source? I've never heard this.
Eusebius, St. Hegesippus.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2013, 02:41:01 PM »

We are told, by the earliest Tradition (2nd century) that St. Joseph was a widower, and he married the Holy Theotokos as her protector, almost like an adoption (which Jewish law doesn't have).

Esther 2:5-7 according to the 70 says that Mardochaeus brought up young Esther to be his wife:

Quote
Now there was a Jew in the city Susa, and his name was Mardochaeus, the son of Jairus, the son of Semeias, the son of Cisaeus, of the tribe of Benjamin; who had been brought a prisoner from Jerusalem, which Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had carried into captivity. And he had a foster child (παῖς θρεπτή), daughter of Aminadab his father’s brother, and her name was Esther; and when her parents were dead, he brought her up for a wife for himself (ἐπαίδευσεν αὐτὴν ἑαυτῷ εἰς γυναῖκα): and the damsel was beautiful.

The Masoretic text differs:

Quote
Now there was a Jew in the citadel of Susa whose name was Mordecai son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite. Kish had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives carried away with King Jeconiah of Judah, whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried away. Mordecai had brought up Hadassah, that is Esther, his cousin, for she had neither father nor mother; the girl was fair and beautiful, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai adopted her as his own daughter.

Jewish "adoption" is, like Islamic law, more like a foster child.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,826


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2013, 08:02:23 PM »

The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

The Ark that bore the source of all Life brings death to undefiled touch?

I didn't know it was possible to squeeze that much contradiction, paradox, and mental gymnastics in one sentence... and it is equally absurd.

There are many things about the nativity and young years of Jesus that bother me. Such as to where the source of the story derives? Who knew the events and then transmitted them?

It's one of those moments you either have faith in the life and testimony of Jesus and his apostles, to include the faith given. Or you don't.

I have often considered this after reading scholars who dismiss the Bethlehem birth part as made up.

We all learn our families history from our parents, and or relatives most of the time.

 So why is it so hard to believe that Mary had plenty of time to tell these stories of Jesus birth and young life to the disciples, who were like family after the Lord's crucifixion .
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2013, 08:20:14 PM »

The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself?

You do understand how incredibly weak this apology is and is actually anti-incarnational (is there such a word?)?

Young, old, who cares what YIM struggles with that is spelled out in Holy Scripture so clearly that even he shouldn't have an argument. But to construct legend and worse yet, poor theology, to explain the virginity of Mary is just wrong for so many reasons.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 08:20:31 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,852


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2013, 08:23:22 PM »


So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.


The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

Now, St Joseph was a good Jew, he would have been brought up with a strong sense of the sacred. He would have been raised knowing the stories in scripture of people touching the Ark of the Covenant and suffering instant death. He would have also known that only the high priest dared enter the Holy of Holies of the Temple to offer the yearly sacrifice to the presence of God who "dwelt there". Undoubtedly at some stage St Joseph would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to realize the true meaning behind these images and stories from scripture, as well as the temple rituals.

Once the meaning of these became clear to him, how, then, could Joseph possibly consider marital relations with this woman, the living Tabernacle, the new Ark, the Holy of Holies, knowing that she has given birth to the Son of God? Not that sex is bad, evil or wrong between married couples, just as eating and cooking meat are not bad, evil, or wrong in themselves, but when put into service to God in the Temple, be it sacrificial animals, or, in the case of Mary who was dedicated to the Temple as a child, they became holy, and only the high priests could participate in the sacrifice. Christ Himself is the great and eternal High Priest, the "prince who eats bread before the Lord" (Ezekiel 44). Good man that he was, St Joseph would most likely have regarded himself as utterly unworthy to even be in the presence of such a treasure blessed and wholly sanctified by God, let alone consider sleeping with her.



My problem with this is that it assumes St. Joseph and the Theotokos knew just how significant and special that Jesus was. It's a given that they knew he was special, but whether or not they knew he was really the Son of God center-of-all-cosmic-history special? I don't know. And judging from Scriptures, it appears that no one knew until after the Resurrection. And St. Joseph died sometime around the Crucifixion, hence Jesus telling St. John to take care of the Theotokos, so idk if St. Joseph ever found out just how special Jesus was.

That being said, what if they did have sex? It personally doesn't make any difference to me at all either way; if I found out that they did have sex, I wouldn't think any differently of them at all. I don't get why the Orthodox and Roman Catholics take this so seriously, and why Protestants have such a vendetta to reject it. It all seems irrelevant if you ask me. Yet, I could probably get an anathema against me if I said this.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2013, 08:23:45 PM »

Jewish "adoption" is, like Islamic law, more like a foster child.

Can you say more about this? Would "foster child" hear be equivalent to all the warnings against misusing "orphans" and their property you read over and over and over and over in the Koran?

Anything you could write on this or link to would be appreciated.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 08:24:30 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,648



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2013, 09:18:20 PM »

Maybe Joseph wasn'tg sexually attracted to women.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,297


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2013, 09:21:59 PM »

My problem with this is that it assumes St. Joseph and the Theotokos knew just how significant and special that Jesus was. It's a given that they knew he was special, but whether or not they knew he was really the Son of God center-of-all-cosmic-history special? I don't know. And judging from Scriptures, it appears that no one knew until after the Resurrection. And St. Joseph died sometime around the Crucifixion, hence Jesus telling St. John to take care of the Theotokos, so idk if St. Joseph ever found out just how special Jesus was.

That being said, what if they did have sex? It personally doesn't make any difference to me at all either way; if I found out that they did have sex, I wouldn't think any differently of them at all. I don't get why the Orthodox and Roman Catholics take this so seriously, and why Protestants have such a vendetta to reject it. It all seems irrelevant if you ask me. Yet, I could probably get an anathema against me if I said this.

Yeah.  Watch your back.  Tongue

I can sympathise with the argument that, perhaps, Mary and Joseph didn't understand just how special Jesus was.  While I think they knew their faith and the Scriptures well enough, I don't think they had "Orthodox Theology" infused into their minds in their lifetime.  There are liturgical texts, particularly on Great Friday, which speak of the Mother of God in a way that, while quite natural, goes against the notion of some stoic, so-convinced-Jesus-is-God-that-she-doesn't-flinch-at-the-Cross woman.  And I think the fact that Chrysostom and others can speculate that she may have been impetuous or otherwise "sinful" when she appears to interrupt his preaching to visit with him speaks to the idea that even they thought she might not have understood *everything*.  Luke tells us she did a lot of "pondering" over these things, so who knows?  

But I think it's a pretty big leap to go from this and say that there's no big deal if she and Joseph carried on what we consider a normal, marital relationship.  To put it very simply, the ever-virginity of Mary is the assurance that the Child she bore is really the Son of God the Father.  All Christians believe in the Virgin Birth, but not all believe in the ever-virginity of Mary.  But if she went on to have a "normal" physical relationship with Joseph, who's to say that this is not what happened in the case of Jesus?  It's not like there are extant medical records which certify that Jesus's was definitely a virginal birth so that she could go on to have other children "normally" without casting doubt on Jesus's origins.  We know that Jesus is who we say he is in part because we know he's the only Son of his mother without a father, and the only Son of his Father without a mother.  The moment you admit the possibility that Our Lady had a normal sexual life with her spouse and bore other children, Jesus looks like a big joke.  A big joke with nice things to say which got him into a lot of trouble, but nevertheless, a big joke.  Protestants have a vendetta against the ever-virginity of Mary (if in fact they do...that's such a collective term that I wonder if they *all* do this) because they want to reduce the veneration of Mary.  Catholics and Orthodox take it seriously because, like all "Mariology", it has everything to do with Jesus.  

Anyway, and this may well be my own personal quirk, but I find it gross and distasteful to talk about my mother's sexuality, even though I know it has something to do with my origins.  Why do we feel so free to talk about Our Lady's sexuality?  She's not this month's Cosmo cover girl.    
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,297


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2013, 09:28:27 PM »

You do understand how incredibly weak this apology is and is actually anti-incarnational (is there such a word?)?

Young, old, who cares what YIM struggles with that is spelled out in Holy Scripture so clearly that even he shouldn't have an argument. But to construct legend and worse yet, poor theology, to explain the virginity of Mary is just wrong for so many reasons.

Just curious: how was that particular line of argument "anti-incarnational"?  It seems, to me, thoroughly grounded in the liturgical and patristic tradition of the Church, which we believe flows from our contemplation of Scripture in the light of the Spirit.  Maybe it's not exactly how the "characters in the story" understood themselves and their role, but if we interpret their lives and their choices in this light, how is it any different from what John is doing in Jn. 12.41?   
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2013, 11:11:39 PM »

So why is it so hard to believe that Mary had plenty of time to tell these stories of Jesus birth and young life to the disciples, who were like family after the Lord's crucifixion .

It not hard to believe this. It's hard to believe her and her relatives' story over Joseph Smith and his relatives' story.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The San Franciscan Orthodox Church of New York, Big Apple and Fourth Rome
Posts: 1,661


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2013, 11:23:11 PM »

Maybe Joseph wasn'tg sexually attracted to women.
Roll Eyes
Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2013, 11:36:54 PM »


So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.


The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

Now, St Joseph was a good Jew, he would have been brought up with a strong sense of the sacred. He would have been raised knowing the stories in scripture of people touching the Ark of the Covenant and suffering instant death. He would have also known that only the high priest dared enter the Holy of Holies of the Temple to offer the yearly sacrifice to the presence of God who "dwelt there". Undoubtedly at some stage St Joseph would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to realize the true meaning behind these images and stories from scripture, as well as the temple rituals.

Once the meaning of these became clear to him, how, then, could Joseph possibly consider marital relations with this woman, the living Tabernacle, the new Ark, the Holy of Holies, knowing that she has given birth to the Son of God? Not that sex is bad, evil or wrong between married couples, just as eating and cooking meat are not bad, evil, or wrong in themselves, but when put into service to God in the Temple, be it sacrificial animals, or, in the case of Mary who was dedicated to the Temple as a child, they became holy, and only the high priests could participate in the sacrifice. Christ Himself is the great and eternal High Priest, the "prince who eats bread before the Lord" (Ezekiel 44). Good man that he was, St Joseph would most likely have regarded himself as utterly unworthy to even be in the presence of such a treasure blessed and wholly sanctified by God, let alone consider sleeping with her.



My problem with this is that it assumes St. Joseph and the Theotokos knew just how significant and special that Jesus was. It's a given that they knew he was special, but whether or not they knew he was really the Son of God center-of-all-cosmic-history special? I don't know. And judging from Scriptures, it appears that no one knew until after the Resurrection. And St. Joseph died sometime around the Crucifixion, hence Jesus telling St. John to take care of the Theotokos, so idk if St. Joseph ever found out just how special Jesus was.

That being said, what if they did have sex? It personally doesn't make any difference to me at all either way; if I found out that they did have sex, I wouldn't think any differently of them at all. I don't get why the Orthodox and Roman Catholics take this so seriously, and why Protestants have such a vendetta to reject it. It all seems irrelevant if you ask me. Yet, I could probably get an anathema against me if I said this.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I'm with you on this James.  It would not change Mary at all nor the virgin birth.  If her and Joseph engaged in physical relation, it matters not IMHO.   Married people can and should do this, without ANY defilement or wickedness.  They are "one flesh" after all.

I'm just kind of thrown off a lot because of the claims made of Mary & Joseph.  I mean who was there to "really know".    I mean did Joseph tell all the people he knew "I don't make love with my wife"... I think there is A LOT of assumption passed off they never made love as a husband and wife...

Even if early Christians or saints have said this stuff, I still find it hard to believe.  Anybody that is married KNOWS that even your closest friends and family do not know about your physical relationship (when or when not you have engaged in it).  Hard to believe a guy from 150 A.D. would know what went on behind the curtain...

I guess the truth of the matter is, I would be happy if they actually did make love.  It would make their marriage seem closer and that Christ grew up with closely bonded parents.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,297


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2013, 12:36:38 AM »

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I'm with you on this James.  It would not change Mary at all nor the virgin birth.  If her and Joseph engaged in physical relation, it matters not IMHO.   Married people can and should do this, without ANY defilement or wickedness.  They are "one flesh" after all.

Yes, married people are one flesh.  But marriage, in its physical and non-physical elements, is an icon of another, more primary relationship--the union of Christ and his Church.  The unity of man and woman as one flesh doesn't just exist for themselves, but points to something more fundamental.  And yet, the same St Paul who argues along these lines in Ephesians would go on in I Corinthians to teach that married couples could, by mutual consent and for spiritual reasons, abstain from their marital relations, without infringing on the validity or the unity of their marriage.  So marriage must be more than just sex.  "One flesh" isn't merely a euphemism.         

Quote
I'm just kind of thrown off a lot because of the claims made of Mary & Joseph.  I mean who was there to "really know".    I mean did Joseph tell all the people he knew "I don't make love with my wife"... I think there is A LOT of assumption passed off they never made love as a husband and wife...

If the standard is "Who was there to really know?", then let's just be honest: none of us on OCNet was there, so why believe some of it and not the rest?   Why bother with any of it?  You might as well worship Grumpy Cat.  At least we can verify its existence. 

Quote
Even if early Christians or saints have said this stuff, I still find it hard to believe.  Anybody that is married KNOWS that even your closest friends and family do not know about your physical relationship (when or when not you have engaged in it).  Hard to believe a guy from 150 A.D. would know what went on behind the curtain...

If that's the case, then perhaps we shouldn't talk about it one way or the other.  But...

Quote
I guess the truth of the matter is, I would be happy if they actually did make love.  It would make their marriage seem closer and that Christ grew up with closely bonded parents.

...it appears some of us seem invested in believing things the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in order to ease our own peculiar discomforts.

Why are we assuming that Mary and Joseph could only be close to each other and "closely bonded parents" for Jesus if they enjoyed a normal sexual relationship?  Because every married couple who has sex is automatically "close" and becomes a pair of "closely bonded parents" for their children?  Look around at the world, it's a bit more complicated. 
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,654


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2013, 01:03:12 AM »

I guess the truth of the matter is, I would be happy if they actually did make love.  It would make their marriage seem closer and that Christ grew up with closely bonded parents.

A lot of people "make love" to their spouse and wind up in divorce.  Then the child grows up with parents who are no longer "closely bonded."

Equating how Christ was raised by St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary to whether or not they made love is baffling?  That allegation is akin to attempts to prove the Holy Fire in Jerusalem a fraud in order to prove Christianity is a fraud.  The enemies have technology and video websites, where one man's music video gathered 1.5 billion views, on their side and yet, the Holy Fire continues to occur.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 01:03:54 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2013, 02:31:40 AM »


My problem with this is that it assumes St. Joseph and the Theotokos knew just how significant and special that Jesus was. It's a given that they knew he was special, but whether or not they knew he was really the Son of God center-of-all-cosmic-history special? I don't know. And judging from Scriptures, it appears that no one knew until after the Resurrection. And St. Joseph died sometime around the Crucifixion, hence Jesus telling St. John to take care of the Theotokos, so idk if St. Joseph ever found out just how special Jesus was.


The account in the NT of the Meeting of the Lord (when the 40-day-old Christ was presented to the Temple) has something to say about this. The hymns of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord has even more to say about it. Make the effort to get yourself a copy of the text of this wonderful feast which is one of the Twelve Great Feasts.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2013, 04:14:38 AM »

Quote
My problem with this is that it assumes St. Joseph and the Theotokos knew just how significant and special that Jesus was. It's a given that they knew he was special, but whether or not they knew he was really the Son of God center-of-all-cosmic-history special? I don't know. And judging from Scriptures, it appears that no one knew until after the Resurrection.

Hymns concerning St Joseph from the service to the Three Holy Righteous Ones, being David the King and Prophet, James the Brother of the Lord, and St Joseph the Betrothed, commemorated on the first Sunday after the Nativity:

In old age Joseph the Betrothed beheld the things foretold by the prophets clearly fulfilled, having received a strange betrothal and a revelation from angels who cry: Glory to God, who has imparted peace upon the earth.

The choir of prophets divinely celebrates the wonder which took place in you, O Virgin; for you gave birth to God, incarnate upon earth. Therefore, angels and shepherds hymn, and the Magi and Joseph sing of the wonders to David, the forefather of God.

With the Magi let us worship him who has been born; and with the angels and Joseph let us join chorus, singing in godly manner: Glory to Christ our God in the highest.

Glory to You; glory to You, O God incarnate, whose good pleasure it was to take flesh of the pure Virgin; thus Joseph sang.

Today the divine David is filled with gladness, and Joseph offers praise with James. They rejoice, receiving a crown through kinship with Christ; they praise Him, ineffably born on earth, as they sing: O compassionate One, save those who honour You.
(Kontakion of the feast)

On the mountain Moses beheld the unconsumed bush; and in the cave Joseph witnessed the ineffable birth: O Mother of God, Virgin undefiled and unwed Mother, we magnify you in hymns.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2013, 09:30:17 AM »

Maybe Joseph wasn'tg sexually attracted to women.

Or, perhaps, he was an older man who just didn't have a sex drive anymore and accepted the "job" of being protector of Mary and Jesus without complaint and with humility.  *GASP!*   

Note, not all older men lose their libido, but plenty do. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,207


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2013, 10:41:41 AM »



I guess the truth of the matter is, I would be happy if they actually did make love.  It would make their marriage seem closer and that Christ grew up with closely bonded parents.



I'm sorry, but having sexual relations with one's spouse does not mean that their marriage is closer, nor does it make the couple closely bonded.

I have been deployed twice and both times my wife and I were extremely close, but there was no sex going on. The most we could do was chat via Skype/Google Voice. This shows me that sex is not a necessary part of a marriage to make things work smoothly.

My wife and I could stop having sex right now (as in decide not to have sex any more, not that we are having sex whilst I'm typing), and my daughters would still grow up with closely bonded parents.

Yes, sex with my wife is great and wonderful, but it is not the only thing that holds our marriage together.

Also, as has been mentioned, Joseph was older and it is entirely possible that he did not have a sex drive, or a blue pill.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2013, 12:40:32 PM »


So Mary & Joseph were husband and wife all these years, and NEVER "became one flesh?"

To say Mary is "Ever Virgin", I have no problem with, as the virgin birth of Christ remains "forever".   

But to say that her and her husband "never did anything" is rather troubling...   I mean, it is natural and a blessing of marriage.  No tarnishment if they had, as it is not sinful at all between husband and wife...

Sometimes I wonder what time machine using theologian was spying on them at night making those claims.


The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

Now, St Joseph was a good Jew, he would have been brought up with a strong sense of the sacred. He would have been raised knowing the stories in scripture of people touching the Ark of the Covenant and suffering instant death. He would have also known that only the high priest dared enter the Holy of Holies of the Temple to offer the yearly sacrifice to the presence of God who "dwelt there". Undoubtedly at some stage St Joseph would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to realize the true meaning behind these images and stories from scripture, as well as the temple rituals.

Once the meaning of these became clear to him, how, then, could Joseph possibly consider marital relations with this woman, the living Tabernacle, the new Ark, the Holy of Holies, knowing that she has given birth to the Son of God? Not that sex is bad, evil or wrong between married couples, just as eating and cooking meat are not bad, evil, or wrong in themselves, but when put into service to God in the Temple, be it sacrificial animals, or, in the case of Mary who was dedicated to the Temple as a child, they became holy, and only the high priests could participate in the sacrifice. Christ Himself is the great and eternal High Priest, the "prince who eats bread before the Lord" (Ezekiel 44). Good man that he was, St Joseph would most likely have regarded himself as utterly unworthy to even be in the presence of such a treasure blessed and wholly sanctified by God, let alone consider sleeping with her.



My problem with this is that it assumes St. Joseph and the Theotokos knew just how significant and special that Jesus was. It's a given that they knew he was special, but whether or not they knew he was really the Son of God center-of-all-cosmic-history special? I don't know. And judging from Scriptures, it appears that no one knew until after the Resurrection. And St. Joseph died sometime around the Crucifixion, hence Jesus telling St. John to take care of the Theotokos, so idk if St. Joseph ever found out just how special Jesus was.

That being said, what if they did have sex? It personally doesn't make any difference to me at all either way; if I found out that they did have sex, I wouldn't think any differently of them at all. I don't get why the Orthodox and Roman Catholics take this so seriously, and why Protestants have such a vendetta to reject it. It all seems irrelevant if you ask me. Yet, I could probably get an anathema against me if I said this.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I'm with you on this James.  It would not change Mary at all nor the virgin birth.  If her and Joseph engaged in physical relation, it matters not IMHO.   Married people can and should do this, without ANY defilement or wickedness.  They are "one flesh" after all.

I'm just kind of thrown off a lot because of the claims made of Mary & Joseph.  I mean who was there to "really know".    I mean did Joseph tell all the people he knew "I don't make love with my wife"... I think there is A LOT of assumption passed off they never made love as a husband and wife...

Even if early Christians or saints have said this stuff, I still find it hard to believe.  Anybody that is married KNOWS that even your closest friends and family do not know about your physical relationship (when or when not you have engaged in it).  Hard to believe a guy from 150 A.D. would know what went on behind the curtain...

I guess the truth of the matter is, I would be happy if they actually did make love.  It would make their marriage seem closer and that Christ grew up with closely bonded parents.
He did.  The Holy Theotokos was very closely bonded to God the Father.  That's how the Holy Spirit overshadowed her to incarnate the Son.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2013, 12:49:28 PM »



I guess the truth of the matter is, I would be happy if they actually did make love.  It would make their marriage seem closer and that Christ grew up with closely bonded parents.



I'm sorry, but having sexual relations with one's spouse does not mean that their marriage is closer, nor does it make the couple closely bonded.

I have been deployed twice and both times my wife and I were extremely close, but there was no sex going on. The most we could do was chat via Skype/Google Voice. This shows me that sex is not a necessary part of a marriage to make things work smoothly.
A bit overstated, particularly as there was (to judge from your posts) love making before and after deployment.  Conversely, divorce records would show that even sex had stopped for some time along the way to dissolution of marriage.

On the other hand, one night stands don't make a marriage, and some (but not all) long married couples grow old together although their lovemaking fades into memory.  But they still share the memory.

Back on point: St. Joseph's marriage was not an ordinary marriage to the Holy Theotokos.  Normal things did not apply.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fotina02
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2013, 01:09:25 PM »

St Joseph the Betrothed, the most humble of saints, who was entrusted the awesome task of protecting the Theotokos and care of the infant Lord, who received at least 2 divine visions related in Scriptures,  transfigured any fleshly drives and infirmities by the grace of the Holy Spirit--nothing to do with age or impaired libido.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2013, 01:10:30 PM »

You do understand how incredibly weak this apology is and is actually anti-incarnational (is there such a word?)?

Young, old, who cares what YIM struggles with that is spelled out in Holy Scripture so clearly that even he shouldn't have an argument. But to construct legend and worse yet, poor theology, to explain the virginity of Mary is just wrong for so many reasons.

Just curious: how was that particular line of argument "anti-incarnational"?  It seems, to me, thoroughly grounded in the liturgical and patristic tradition of the Church, which we believe flows from our contemplation of Scripture in the light of the Spirit.  Maybe it's not exactly how the "characters in the story" understood themselves and their role, but if we interpret their lives and their choices in this light, how is it any different from what John is doing in Jn. 12.41?   

It fits nicely in some poetic and allegorical dovetailing of the NT with the OT, but fails on obvious numerous grounds.

Did God touch people?

Yes.

Did people touch God, even without His consent or knowing who had?

Yes.

Do people take the flesh and blood and of God into their mouths?

Yes.

But, for some reason Joseph couldn't have had sex with Mary because God "had been there"?

Nonsense.

The radical and unfathomable distance between the divine and man was reconciled in the Incarnation. To say otherwise is to be anti-Incarnational.

God is a human person. Human persons were physically intimate with Him (there is some interesting ambiguity as to His relations with human persons after His resurrection). Human persons take God's flesh and blood into the mouths.

When have any died from the above?

The Scripture is clear on the matter as is Tradition about the virginity of Mary.

To the poetic and allegorical, it is nice and lovely.  But as an apology it fails. See above.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2013, 01:12:28 PM »

transfigured any fleshly drives and infirmities by the grace of the Holy Spirit--nothing to do with age or impaired libido.

The desire for sex to be transfigured doesn't mean its eradication.

See the Transfiguration for the non-eradication of God's flesh and blood and all things human.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2013, 02:16:28 PM »

I think the topic gets confused with many broad pronouncements and thoughts.

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Considering Matthew was absolutely a disciple I think these are interesting scriptures.  Despite the later "RC & EO" apologetics trying to eradicate the world "till" the apologetics are very hazy at best.

The issue exists in "and he new her not till" the entire phrase.

I know through Orthodox teaching is the "ever virgin" arguments.  However, I'm finding these arguments actually detrimental to the wonderment of the Mother of God.    She of course was a virgin at the birth of Christ and while pregnant.  That is clear.  I can totally see her as "ever virgin" in this sense.

In marriage which the EO here on the forum totally admit was "valid" between Joseph and Mary, let's bring up some other points.

1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

This means that the Mother of God, had not power over her own body, but her husband.  This means that Joseph had (controversially) power over her body through her pregnancy of Christ, but absolutely afterwards.  He was her husband!


Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Joseph & the Theotokos are of one flesh, spoken by God himself!  (If the EO believe in marriage & validity of their marriage)


Also repeated in Matthew 19: 4-6  4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read , that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said , For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together , let not man put asunder .

Through marriage God hath joined together Mary & Joseph, in a legitimate marriage.


Anyhow it makes more sense to me that Mary & Joseph did engage in a physical relationship after Christ was born.  Matthew seems to clearly indicate it.  "did not know her till Jesus was born".  

I guess I'm just kind of disturbed what seems to be a facet of "strange propaganda" on this subject.
1) Because nobody in that time REALLY knew (except for it seems Matthew) what went on between them behind closed doors.
2) Because nobody seems to want to think the mother of God enjoyed her husband??
3) Because somehow it seems that the "ever virgin" label somehow makes her more "pure" than a woman who is married being with her husband.  This smacks matrimony in the face, as a woman is still "pure" if she saves her virginity for her husband.   There is nothing sinful, tarnishing, or wrong for a woman to give her virginity to her husband....

Can't Mary be "ever virgin" in the memory that she will forever be a virgin at the birth of Christ?  There just doesn't seem to be a real point of saying that "she was never with Joseph", when truly the scriptures indicate otherwise ---- UNLESS --- somehow the church wants to claim that a woman & her husband are less pure because "they knew each other".


^^one more point with the issue on the post above mine, "Fleshy desires" within love making between husband and wife are exactly the way God created us.  Not ONE single person would be here (except Adam at the beginning), including Mary, if people didn't desire sexually.   I see nothing wrong with desiring one's spouse.



« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 02:19:22 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2013, 02:58:11 PM »

The issue exists in "and he knew her not till" the entire phrase.

till = Greek ἕως

Compare:

Matthew 5:25

ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, ἕως ὅτου εἶ μετʼ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.

"Come to terms quickly with (be well-disposed towards) your accuser while [until] you are on the way with him."

Matthew 16:28

εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.

"There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 28:20

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

"I am with you always (all days) until the end of the age."


« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 03:25:07 PM by Romaios » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,852


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2013, 03:01:23 PM »

If the Theotokos knew how special Christ was, then how come we commemorate her crying at the Crucifixion? If she knew that He was really God Incarnate and His purpose on Earth, then wouldn't she have not cried at the Cross?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2013, 03:07:06 PM »

If the Theotokos knew how special Christ was, then how come we commemorate her crying at the Crucifixion? If she knew that He was really God Incarnate and His purpose on Earth, then wouldn't she have not cried at the Cross?

She was still a human being and, most importantly, a Jewish mother and saw her only son nailed to a piece of wood.  Sometimes you KNOW things but dont fully KNOW them.  Soemtimes knowing something doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.  When I broke up with my ex-girlfriend of three years, I KNEW it was for the best but it still hurt like hell.

Note, also, the hymnography finishes the thought (paraphrasing): "I don't quite understand why this is happening, but You will make me understand because You are God."
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,852


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2013, 03:08:16 PM »

You do understand how incredibly weak this apology is and is actually anti-incarnational (is there such a word?)?

Young, old, who cares what YIM struggles with that is spelled out in Holy Scripture so clearly that even he shouldn't have an argument. But to construct legend and worse yet, poor theology, to explain the virginity of Mary is just wrong for so many reasons.

Just curious: how was that particular line of argument "anti-incarnational"?

Because it ignores the message of Christ healing us from the state of death. The reason humans during the OT died from touching the Ark was because the presence of God dwelled in it and due to our state of death, humanity couldn't handle or be at peace with the presence of God, hence why they died when they touched the Ark.

Theologically, didn't Christ come to defeat death and restore peace between humanity and God so that the barrier wouldn't exist anymore? To say that St. Joseph could have gotten hurt or died from attempting to have sexual relations with the Theotokos overemphasizes the condition of death and estrangement to God, ignoring Christ's liberating purpose to save us from that.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2013, 03:10:01 PM »

If the Theotokos knew how special Christ was, then how come we commemorate her crying at the Crucifixion? If she knew that He was really God Incarnate and His purpose on Earth, then wouldn't she have not cried at the Cross?

Your scholastic mindset prevents you yet again from understanding emotional women.  Tongue

"A sword will pierce your very soul." (Luke 2:35)
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 03:24:15 PM by Romaios » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,297


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2013, 03:30:24 PM »

It fits nicely in some poetic and allegorical dovetailing of the NT with the OT, but fails on obvious numerous grounds.

Did God touch people?

Yes.

Did people touch God, even without His consent or knowing who had?

Yes.

Do people take the flesh and blood and of God into their mouths?

Yes.

But, for some reason Joseph couldn't have had sex with Mary because God "had been there"?

Nonsense.

The radical and unfathomable distance between the divine and man was reconciled in the Incarnation. To say otherwise is to be anti-Incarnational.

God is a human person. Human persons were physically intimate with Him (there is some interesting ambiguity as to His relations with human persons after His resurrection). Human persons take God's flesh and blood into the mouths.

When have any died from the above?

The Scripture is clear on the matter as is Tradition about the virginity of Mary.

To the poetic and allegorical, it is nice and lovely.  But as an apology it fails. See above.

Thanks for your clarification.  If I may put you to work again, what is the ambiguity you refer to with regard to our Lord's post-resurrection relations with people?  

I don't know if I agree that this particular argument (regarding Joseph and Mary) was "anti-incarnational".  I look at it more in terms of reverence.  We are not anti-incarnational, for example, when we refuse to use chalices and diskoi for coffee hour; we are being reverent toward objects designated for sacred purposes.  When we speak about Mary in our tradition, we often use similar language and ideas.  

As apologetics, perhaps an allegorical or poetic explanation doesn't hold up, but I think this is a separate issue.  Liturgical texts, for the Orthodox, are a source of theology: lex orandi, lex credendi.  But so is Scripture.  When our interpretation of one doesn't seem to hold up with the other, we've messed up somewhere.  

I continue to believe that, based on the testimony of the Gospels, it's possible that Mary and Joseph, the apostles, disciples, etc. did not fully appreciate the full depth of who Christ was.  When Joseph and Mary find Jesus in the Temple, and he asks them how they could not have known that he'd be in his Father's house, Luke tells us that they didn't understand that saying...no matter how many appearances of Gabriel they had received in the past, no matter how much and what Simeon told them when they came to the Temple, no matter how much they'd seen and experienced in those twelve or thirteen years, they still didn't know what on earth he was talking about.  Mary kept pondering these things.  The apostles are always tripped up by Jesus, either not believing or not understanding.  When Peter confesses Christ as Son of God, the Lord prophesies his death and resurrection, and Peter can't bear the idea...Christ calls him Satan.  James and John want to sit on either side of him in his kingdom, but that's because they don't understand the nature of his reign.  At the Last Supper, Jesus prophesies his betrayal and gives them the Eucharist, and soon they're arguing over who's the best among them.  Even after he rises from the dead, Matthew tell us that they worshiped him, "but some doubted".  In Mark and Luke, he scolds them for their unbelief.  In Acts, as he's about to ascend to heaven, Jesus is asked by them if he's going to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time...forty days of the presence of the risen Lord, of his teaching, of opening the Scriptures, and they're still stuck.  Saul of Tarsus, if he did not know Christ while he was on earth, certainly heard the apostolic preaching after Pentecost...it wasn't self-evident to him that all this was the fulfillment of Scripture.  He needed to see the risen Lord himself, be baptized, and pore over the Scriptures again before he could see it for what it was and become known to us as Paul.  We can't just dismiss this.    

Yet, our liturgical texts speak of things differently.  While they sometimes speak of the doubts and the uncertainties these figures had, they also speak at other times as if they knew very well what was going on.  I don't think the liturgy and Scripture are contradicting each other: how could we allow that possibility and believe in the Spirit's abiding in the Church?  Rather, I think the liturgical texts are doing something different.  They are taking our understanding of the gospel in the light of the Holy Spirit's indwelling and inspiration within the Church, and reading it back into the stories and events told in Scripture.  Liturgical texts often speak of events in salvation history as happening "today" when we commemorate them on their feasts.  That's not because it is actually happening in our current human time, but because they are eternal realities that broke into and happened at moments in that human time.  Their "eternity" allows us to enter into their "now", or allows their "now" to become our "now" here and now.  Similarly, when our liturgical texts speak of the faith of Mary at the foot of the Cross, for example, I don't think this is a contradiction of what likely was going on in the mind and heart of a woman watching her son being tortured and murdered in front of her; we consider her as the model par excellence of faith, and we read that back into her experience at Golgotha.  Nevertheless, those same liturgical texts will talk about her feelings of grief and anguish in almost desperate terms.  

I think, with regard to Joseph, similar things are being done in the hymns cited earlier in this thread.  The Scriptures have him saying not even one word; he's a man of silence, but a man of faith, of righteousness, and of action.  Yet, the liturgical texts having him saying all sorts of things.  Is it because he really said them?  Or is it because those sayings are entirely consonant with his character and role?  Is it "historical" truth or "confessional" truth?  It is definitely the latter, whether or not it is also the former, but it is still "truth".  You may not be able to win a court case like this, but that doesn't make it false.                          
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,297


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2013, 03:45:15 PM »

She was still a human being and, most importantly, a Jewish mother and saw her only son nailed to a piece of wood.  Sometimes you KNOW things but dont fully KNOW them.  Soemtimes knowing something doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.  When I broke up with my ex-girlfriend of three years, I KNEW it was for the best but it still hurt like hell.

Note, also, the hymnography finishes the thought (paraphrasing): "I don't quite understand why this is happening, but You will make me understand because You are God."

Right.  She is a model of faith, but she's also a human and a mother.  She's a human and a mother, but she's also a model of faith. 

Some of the most moving hymns of Great Friday in the Syriac tradition are the laments of Mary at the foot of the Cross.  While lamenting bitterly over what's being done to her Son, she nevertheless knows full well who he is and what he's doing.  She lashes out against the apostles, (I paraphrase) asking Peter why he said he'd never deny Christ only to do so three times, and asking Thomas why he's not there if he was the one who said "Let us go with him to Jerusalem, that we may die with him".  She complains to the Archangels Michael and Gabriel: "When two of you were insulted in Sodom, you rained down fire from heaven; when you see what is being done to your Lord, how is it possible for you to be silent?  Why aren't you destroying the universe?  Is he restraining you?"  She weeps because she doesn't have anyone to mourn with her, her Son has left her, and she's all alone.  The interplay of her very human experience of pain and suffering with her invincible faith is quite powerful.  And it's true.  It's true in her own life, it's true in the life of the Church of which she is a symbol and type, and it is an example for us as believers, of which she is the first and prime example.   
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2013, 04:31:33 PM »

St Joseph the Betrothed, the most humble of saints, who was entrusted the awesome task of protecting the Theotokos and care of the infant Lord, who received at least 2 divine visions related in Scriptures,  transfigured any fleshly drives and infirmities by the grace of the Holy Spirit--nothing to do with age or impaired libido.
Were you the one who said here that only no saint was ever married, or ever made love after their calling?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,826


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2013, 07:24:01 PM »

So why is it so hard to believe that Mary had plenty of time to tell these stories of Jesus birth and young life to the disciples, who were like family after the Lord's crucifixion .

It not hard to believe this. It's hard to believe her and her relatives' story over Joseph Smith and his relatives' story.

There are plenty of so called Christian scholars who have nothing at all to do with the mormons who are writing the drivel I have read.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 07:25:03 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2013, 07:30:28 PM »

So why is it so hard to believe that Mary had plenty of time to tell these stories of Jesus birth and young life to the disciples, who were like family after the Lord's crucifixion .

It not hard to believe this. It's hard to believe her and her relatives' story over Joseph Smith and his relatives' story.
Then you haven't heard Joseph Smith's family stories.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.18 seconds with 72 queries.