OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 01:26:04 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 3479 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: 4,157


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
QuietMorning
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,912


May my Dad's Memory be Eternal.


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
Posts: 10,032


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
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,619



« 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
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


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
Posts: 10,032


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
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
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: 37,382



« 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
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: 37,382



« 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
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: 37,382



« 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
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: 37,382



« 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: 1,641


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: 16,440



« 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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


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: 16,440



« 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: 2,589



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: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
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
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,409


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

Ελέησον με, ο Θεός, κατά το μέγα έλεος σου και κατά το πλήθος των οικτιρμών σου εξάλειψον το ανόμημα μου.

Αναστάς ο Ιησούς από του τάφου, καθώς προείπεν, έδωκεν ημίν την αιώνιον ζωήν και το μέγα έλεος.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


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: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,106


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
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


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
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


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: 6,467


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: 1,198


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
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: 37,382



« 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
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: 37,382



« 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: 172



« 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: 16,440



« 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: 16,440



« 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: 4,157


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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


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: 6,467


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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


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: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« 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: 1,641


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
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: 37,382



« 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2013, 07:56:23 PM »

Is there any information or books (Orthodox) which speaks in depth on the details of the husband of Mary, Joseph?
The Protoevangelion of St. James.
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: 172



« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2013, 08:03:38 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?



No, not me, I wouldn't know.

But I believe the Holy Theotokos is ever virgin, and St Joseph the Betrothed lived chastely with her, a feat not hard for God at all.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2013, 08:05:04 PM »

Christ is risen!
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?



No, not me, I wouldn't know.

But I believe the Holy Theotokos is ever virgin, and St Joseph the Betrothed lived chastely with her, a feat not hard for God at all.
St. Joseph isn't God.

But not beyond the means of a human either.

Sorry for the mixup.
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
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2013, 08:15:45 PM »

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.
I was just reading the other day that when oxytocin is released from an orgasm it actually bonds both people closer.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2013, 08:19:41 PM »

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.
I was just reading the other day that when oxytocin is released from an orgasm it actually bonds both people closer.
Yes, but then there has to be less pulling them apart.
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
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #50 on: May 10, 2013, 08:26:14 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?



IIRC it was Maria.
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #51 on: May 10, 2013, 08:53:59 PM »

Another liturgical title given to the Mother of God is Bride of God.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #52 on: May 10, 2013, 09:49:20 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."




This reinforces what I was saying completely.  This is the old school apologetics, but it reinforces everything.

"He knew her not "until" she gave birth".

Take the entire phrase in context.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #53 on: May 10, 2013, 09:50:48 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?

Any parent who sees their child in pain & death would weep... This is human nature.... Which is also one more reason I have struggles accepting the EO & RC teaching that she never was "physical" with her husband post the birth of Christ.

EDIT - and in no way shape or form am I pointing or making an accusation or hurling insult towards her.  I think she is just as wonderful, beautiful, and pure IF she engaged in physical relations with Joseph.   It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

Of course, St. Joseph anything is pretty vague... Which is also kind of strange when I get thinking about it.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 09:56:54 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #54 on: May 10, 2013, 09:57:49 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?

Any parent who sees their child in pain & death would weep... This is human nature.... Which is also one more reason I have struggles accepting the EO & RC teaching that she never was "physical" with her husband post the birth of Christ.

You're forgetting that the daughter of Sts Joachim and Anna was dedicated to be raised in the Temple, where she was sent at the age of three. This little girl was set apart for holy service from before her birth, and was indeed given the holiest duty imaginable: to conceive and bear the Son of God.

I ask you again, YIM: How could any man, even the holy and righteous Joseph, even consider sleeping with the woman whose holiness and sanctity outstrips even that of the angels? How could any man with any sense of reverence consider sleeping with the Bride of God?
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #55 on: May 10, 2013, 10:09:10 PM »

Quote
  It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2013, 10:23:33 PM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 10:23:58 PM by Shanghaiski » Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #57 on: May 10, 2013, 10:32:22 PM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.
Where?
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
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #58 on: May 10, 2013, 10:35:20 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?

Any parent who sees their child in pain & death would weep... This is human nature.... Which is also one more reason I have struggles accepting the EO & RC teaching that she never was "physical" with her husband post the birth of Christ.

You're forgetting that the daughter of Sts Joachim and Anna was dedicated to be raised in the Temple, where she was sent at the age of three. This little girl was set apart for holy service from before her birth, and was indeed given the holiest duty imaginable: to conceive and bear the Son of God.

I ask you again, YIM: How could any man, even the holy and righteous Joseph, even consider sleeping with the woman whose holiness and sanctity outstrips even that of the angels? How could any man with any sense of reverence consider sleeping with the Bride of God?

I appreciate your sincereness.

The only way I could say it, though she be the bride of God, she is also the bride of Joseph and even God "helped" Joseph through his dreams to accept her as a wife.

Absolutely the Mother of God is Holy.   I can absolutely consider her "ever virgin (from the virgin birth)", and Holy in a full marital (Matrimony) covenant where her and her husband Joseph were "one flesh".  It's beautiful and fine.  Without sin, without blemish, or tarnished... Beautiful in matrimony, honorable in matrimony.   This pure virgin, whom gave birth to God himself, later in full matrimony could have been united with her honorable husband without sin.

I'm not saying I know for sure, but struggle in finding fault with a woman being with her husband as if it tarnishes her somehow.   The teaching just seems to make a lot of assumptions.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #59 on: May 10, 2013, 10:37:59 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?

Any parent who sees their child in pain & death would weep... This is human nature.... Which is also one more reason I have struggles accepting the EO & RC teaching that she never was "physical" with her husband post the birth of Christ.

You're forgetting that the daughter of Sts Joachim and Anna was dedicated to be raised in the Temple, where she was sent at the age of three. This little girl was set apart for holy service from before her birth, and was indeed given the holiest duty imaginable: to conceive and bear the Son of God.

I ask you again, YIM: How could any man, even the holy and righteous Joseph, even consider sleeping with the woman whose holiness and sanctity outstrips even that of the angels? How could any man with any sense of reverence consider sleeping with the Bride of God?

I appreciate your sincereness.

The only way I could say it, though she be the bride of God, she is also the bride of Joseph and even God "helped" Joseph through his dreams to accept her as a wife.

Absolutely the Mother of God is Holy.   I can absolutely consider her "ever virgin (from the virgin birth)", and Holy in a full marital (Matrimony) covenant where her and her husband Joseph were "one flesh".  It's beautiful and fine.  Without sin, without blemish, or tarnished... Beautiful in matrimony, honorable in matrimony.   This pure virgin, whom gave birth to God himself, later in full matrimony could have been united with her honorable husband without sin.

I'm not saying I know for sure, but struggle in finding fault with a woman being with her husband as if it tarnishes her somehow.   The teaching just seems to make a lot of assumptions.

Virginity, like pregnancy, is an either-or. You can't be a little bit pregnant, and you can't be ever-virgin while having engaged in marital relations.
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #60 on: May 10, 2013, 10:43:45 PM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.
Where?

Here's one I quickly found:

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema. (Fifth Ecumenical Council)
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #61 on: May 10, 2013, 10:44:56 PM »

I'm not saying I know for sure, but struggle in finding fault with a woman being with her husband as if it tarnishes her somehow.   The teaching just seems to make a lot of assumptions.

Dude, virginity was a choice made by St. Mary. The Lord honored this choice keeping her virginity entact in birthgiving. Why would she change her mind, then, and all the sudden engage in sexual relations? This is not just an ordinary family we're talking about. They were pretty weird, thank God.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #62 on: May 10, 2013, 10:49:01 PM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.

If there IS, I would not understand why...

A woman is not tarnished, shamed, or sinful at all for being with her husband.  Joseph was 100% her husband.  As God stated "one flesh".


It brings up a "propaganda" issue to me... Somehow it seems that physical relations is tarnishing somehow... It seems that a physical relationships with her husband deviates the "agenda" or "view" of how perhaps "some guys in charge" wanted others to see Mary.   Without any disrespect intended - think about it - Did Mary ever fart?  Of course she did!  Mary farted before!   We need to get over it.   Probably burped too.  Barfed, sneezed, coughed, (and plenty of other gross stuff).   But Mary also was a wonderful woman with probably small sins.   She was a virgin and gave birth.

She was a virgin when married to Joseph!  That's very honorable!  Glory to God it's honorable!

The point I'm making is there's nothing at all bad if she did have a physical relationship with Joseph.  If she did it should not be considered dishonorable or bad, but a human being who was pure in Matrimony who became "one flesh" with her husband.  It's beautiful, the way God designed it.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



« Reply #63 on: May 10, 2013, 10:52:26 PM »

IN ANSWER TO THE OP

Yes there is a book on the Holy Fire, an extensively researched history of its appearance; providing 42 historical accounts from the 9th to the 16th century.

It is entitled:

Holy Fire; The miracle of Holy Saturday at the Tomb of Christ

by Haris Skarlakidis (Caralambos K. Skarlakidis)

Published in Athens 2011 by the author

ISBN 978-960-99255-4-9
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 10:52:59 PM by Seraphim98 » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #64 on: May 10, 2013, 10:58:06 PM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.
Where?

Here's one I quickly found:

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema. (Fifth Ecumenical Council)

That's what I mean.

Year 553, they know what happened behind closed doors of a married couple 553 years ago.

That's like me saying "yes, I know what happened behind closed doors to a married couple in 1460" (1460 was 553 years ago.  (Prior to the landing of Columbus on American soil)   Let's smack people upside the head who say otherwise.


look what happened in 1460 (December 30 – Battle of Wakefield: A Lancastrian army under Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset and Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland defeats a Yorkist army under the Duke of York and his son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland. Both York and Rutland are killed, the latter murdered after the battle. York's son Edward becomes leader of the Yorkist faction)    

BEEN A LONG time since battles between the DUKE of York and the EARL of Northumberland.

Yet in 553, these men claim to know what went on in the bedroom behind closed doors of Mary & Joseph (553 years before their time) and are ready to denounce people who say otherwise.

Anyway, I guess it's not the biggest deal in the world, just seems odd to me.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #65 on: May 10, 2013, 10:59:56 PM »

Christ is risen!
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."




This reinforces what I was saying completely.  This is the old school apologetics, but it reinforces everything.

"He knew her not "until" she gave birth".

Take the entire phrase in context.
Your imagination isn't the context.

Good grief-I wish, just for amusement, that I had a time machine.  I'd drop you in 1st century Palestine, just to watch you stumble about like a cave man in the twentieth century.

Yes, let's go back to old school apologetics: ya'll used to cite the use of πρωτότοκος "first born" of Luke 2:7 as proof of what you argue here.  Until, that is, the last century, when a tombstone identifying the deceased as dying in childbirth giveing birth to her πρωτότοκος.  Or would you prefer to continue to argue that she was dead only until childbirth, and had children post mortem?

Like Micha:καὶ τῇ μελχολ θυγατρὶ σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν 2 Samuel 6:23
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no child "until" the day of her death."

Your just reinforcing yourself.

Bon apetite!
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
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #66 on: May 10, 2013, 11:00:59 PM »

IN ANSWER TO THE OP

Yes there is a book on the Holy Fire, an extensively researched history of its appearance; providing 42 historical accounts from the 9th to the 16th century.

It is entitled:

Holy Fire; The miracle of Holy Saturday at the Tomb of Christ

by Haris Skarlakidis (Caralambos K. Skarlakidis)

Published in Athens 2011 by the author

ISBN 978-960-99255-4-9


THANK YOU.

Looking at it though, doesn't seem to have much about Joseph.  Have you read it and does it have some expanded info on him?

If so, would like to buy from a monastery instead of Amazon if anybody has a source for that.  (like to support)
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #67 on: May 10, 2013, 11:03:49 PM »

Christ is risen!
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."




This reinforces what I was saying completely.  This is the old school apologetics, but it reinforces everything.

"He knew her not "until" she gave birth".

Take the entire phrase in context.
Your imagination isn't the context.

Good grief-I wish, just for amusement, that I had a time machine.  I'd drop you in 1st century Palestine, just to watch you stumble about like a cave man in the twentieth century.

Yes, let's go back to old school apologetics: ya'll used to cite the use of πρωτότοκος "first born" of Luke 2:7 as proof of what you argue here.  Until, that is, the last century, when a tombstone identifying the deceased as dying in childbirth giveing birth to her πρωτότοκος.  Or would you prefer to continue to argue that she was dead only until childbirth, and had children post mortem?

Like Micha:καὶ τῇ μελχολ θυγατρὶ σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν 2 Samuel 6:23
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no child "until" the day of her death."

Your just reinforcing yourself.

Bon apetite!

A real life Ouroboros!   Wink

Yeah me too brother.  If I could go back to any time it would be then.  I know I'd be stumbling around for sure Smiley

I guess all I can do on this one is just shrug.

But man I really wish there were some heavy details on the life of St. Joseph.  That would be really cool to know.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #68 on: May 10, 2013, 11:09:00 PM »

Christ is risen!
Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.

If there IS, I would not understand why...

A woman is not tarnished, shamed, or sinful at all for being with her husband.  Joseph was 100% her husband.
No, he was not. Her Son had a prior claim on her, and he married her in that condition.

It brings up a "propaganda" issue to me... Somehow it seems that physical relations is tarnishing somehow... It seems that a physical relationships with her husband deviates the "agenda" or "view" of how perhaps "some guys in charge" wanted others to see Mary.   Without any disrespect intended - think about it - Did Mary ever fart?  Of course she did!  Mary farted before!   We need to get over it.   Probably burped too.  Barfed, sneezed, coughed, (and plenty of other gross stuff).   But Mary also was a wonderful woman with probably small sins.   She was a virgin and gave birth.
So the marital embrace comes on a par with farting.  OK.  Roll Eyes

She was a virgin when married to Joseph!  That's very honorable!  Glory to God it's honorable!

The point I'm making is there's nothing at all bad if she did have a physical relationship with Joseph.  If she did it should not be considered dishonorable or bad, but a human being who was pure in Matrimony who became "one flesh" with her husband.  It's beautiful, the way God designed it.
not the Incarnation He didn't.  Unique circumstances.
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
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



« Reply #69 on: May 10, 2013, 11:23:29 PM »

Yersualaim,

Sorry my post got dropped in the wrong thread.  The book doesn't have much material on St. Joseph, rather it is about the history of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem. It is available from Fr. Matthew Jackson at Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church in Clinton, MS. He is a distributor for certain Orthodox imprints in translation out of Greece. There are several slightly water damaged copies in the Holy Resurrection bookstore that might could be obtained for a modest price.
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #70 on: May 10, 2013, 11:25:49 PM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.
Where?

Here's one I quickly found:

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema. (Fifth Ecumenical Council)

That's what I mean.

Year 553, they know what happened behind closed doors of a married couple 553 years ago.

That's like me saying "yes, I know what happened behind closed doors to a married couple in 1460" (1460 was 553 years ago.  (Prior to the landing of Columbus on American soil)   Let's smack people upside the head who say otherwise.


look what happened in 1460 (December 30 – Battle of Wakefield: A Lancastrian army under Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset and Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland defeats a Yorkist army under the Duke of York and his son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland. Both York and Rutland are killed, the latter murdered after the battle. York's son Edward becomes leader of the Yorkist faction)    

BEEN A LONG time since battles between the DUKE of York and the EARL of Northumberland.

Yet in 553, these men claim to know what went on in the bedroom behind closed doors of Mary & Joseph (553 years before their time) and are ready to denounce people who say otherwise.

Anyway, I guess it's not the biggest deal in the world, just seems odd to me.

The ancient teaching of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God was one maintained by even the early Reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. The idea that she went on to bear more children only appeared a couple of hundred years ago.

For someone who attaches great importance to the antiquity of Christian teachings and practices for their legitimacy, this fact should disturb you.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #71 on: May 10, 2013, 11:28:03 PM »

"To those who dare to say that the all-pure Virgin Mary was not virgin before giving birth, during birthgiving, and after her child-birth, Anathema." (From the Synodikon of Orthodoxy http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/45266.htm.) Alas, it's not enough to cure insanity.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #72 on: May 10, 2013, 11:36:29 PM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.
Where?

Here's one I quickly found:

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema. (Fifth Ecumenical Council)

That's what I mean.

Year 553, they know what happened behind closed doors of a married couple 553 years ago.

That's like me saying "yes, I know what happened behind closed doors to a married couple in 1460" (1460 was 553 years ago.  (Prior to the landing of Columbus on American soil)   Let's smack people upside the head who say otherwise.


look what happened in 1460 (December 30 – Battle of Wakefield: A Lancastrian army under Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset and Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland defeats a Yorkist army under the Duke of York and his son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland. Both York and Rutland are killed, the latter murdered after the battle. York's son Edward becomes leader of the Yorkist faction)    

BEEN A LONG time since battles between the DUKE of York and the EARL of Northumberland.

Yet in 553, these men claim to know what went on in the bedroom behind closed doors of Mary & Joseph (553 years before their time) and are ready to denounce people who say otherwise.

Anyway, I guess it's not the biggest deal in the world, just seems odd to me.
Henrique IV of Castille married in 1440 and 1455.  Both marriages were annulled, and he was surnamed "El Impotente" "the Impotent."  So 553+ years we have an idea of what went on in the bedroom behind closed doors.

The universal testimony of the Church's first century-in as much as they paid attention to it-claimed their marriage was never consummated.
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
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« Reply #73 on: May 10, 2013, 11:38:40 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.





Where do you find the time to make such long and easily dismissed posts?
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« Reply #74 on: May 10, 2013, 11:46:19 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."




This reinforces what I was saying completely.  This is the old school apologetics, but it reinforces everything.

"He knew her not "until" she gave birth".

Take the entire phrase in context.

It does nothing of the sort. You are wrong. One could argue ambiguity in the Greek but it certainly doesn't suport your claim. In light of the ambiguity, one turns toward long standing Tradition, and its says you are wrong. We are not talking about poetic allegory written by folks removed by many centuries from Christ to take the place of Scripture within the texts of the Church, but early witness and belief.

Come up with something interesting next time. At least you have calmed down on the Yeshua thing, so maybe some progress is being made.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« Reply #75 on: May 10, 2013, 11:50:23 PM »

I'm not saying I know for sure, but struggle in finding fault with a woman being with her husband as if it tarnishes her somehow.   The teaching just seems to make a lot of assumptions.

Dude, virginity was a choice made by St. Mary. The Lord honored this choice keeping her virginity entact in birthgiving.

This is one part which makes ZERO sense. You can't lose virginity by giving birth.

This is nonsense.

She remained a virgin in flesh and spirit which is to say in total submission to God. Virginity is not the weird obsession with intact pieces of skin.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #76 on: May 10, 2013, 11:57:44 PM »

I'm not saying I know for sure, but struggle in finding fault with a woman being with her husband as if it tarnishes her somehow.   The teaching just seems to make a lot of assumptions.

Dude, virginity was a choice made by St. Mary. The Lord honored this choice keeping her virginity entact in birthgiving.

This is one part which makes ZERO sense. You can't lose virginity by giving birth.

This is nonsense.

She remained a virgin in flesh and spirit which is to say in total submission to God. Virginity is not the weird obsession with intact pieces of skin.

Multiple levels of meaning are lost on you.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #77 on: May 11, 2013, 12:04:20 AM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.
Where?

Here's one I quickly found:

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema. (Fifth Ecumenical Council)

That's what I mean.

Year 553, they know what happened behind closed doors of a married couple 553 years ago.

That's like me saying "yes, I know what happened behind closed doors to a married couple in 1460" (1460 was 553 years ago.  (Prior to the landing of Columbus on American soil)   Let's smack people upside the head who say otherwise.


look what happened in 1460 (December 30 – Battle of Wakefield: A Lancastrian army under Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset and Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland defeats a Yorkist army under the Duke of York and his son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland. Both York and Rutland are killed, the latter murdered after the battle. York's son Edward becomes leader of the Yorkist faction)    

BEEN A LONG time since battles between the DUKE of York and the EARL of Northumberland.

Yet in 553, these men claim to know what went on in the bedroom behind closed doors of Mary & Joseph (553 years before their time) and are ready to denounce people who say otherwise.

Anyway, I guess it's not the biggest deal in the world, just seems odd to me.

The ancient teaching of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God was one maintained by even the early Reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. The idea that she went on to bear more children only appeared a couple of hundred years ago.

For someone who attaches great importance to the antiquity of Christian teachings and practices for their legitimacy, this fact should disturb you.

It doesn't because I don't deny it, only struggle with the understanding.

It doesn't move Heaven and Earth for me.  Not a huge deal.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #78 on: May 11, 2013, 12:08:25 AM »

One of the prophetic OT readings at Vespers for feasts of the Mother of God:

(Ezekiel 43:27-44:4)

Thus said the Lord: "And when they have completed these days, then from the eighth day onward the priests shall offer upon the altar your burnt offerings and your peace offerings; and I will accept you,” says the Lord God. Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And He said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; He shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.” Then He brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple; and I looked, and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the temple of the Lord; and I fell upon my face.

Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #79 on: May 11, 2013, 12:10:56 AM »

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.





Where do you find the time to make such long and easily dismissed posts?

I sleep 3-4 hours a night.  Hope it never catches up to me.

I don't think it's easily dismissed, I think it contains logic.

How hard is it to say "What happened behind closed doors we don't really know, but to say she never had physical relations with Joseph is a complete assumption".   Unless you can absolutely PROVE she didn't, such as the scriptures citing she did not.

From what I can tell, the scriptures seem to indicate that she did have relations with him.

DESPITE THIS,

Whether she did or didn't isn't exactly what bothers me.  What bothers me is the "pitch" of why on Earth somebody would find it so important to say she "never had physical relations with Joseph"?

Nobody knows this, probably except for Mary, Joseph, and God.
Why not just leave it alone?  

Would it "tarnish" Mary somehow if Joseph had physically been with her as a husband?
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« Reply #80 on: May 11, 2013, 12:11:51 AM »

I'm not saying I know for sure, but struggle in finding fault with a woman being with her husband as if it tarnishes her somehow.   The teaching just seems to make a lot of assumptions.

Dude, virginity was a choice made by St. Mary. The Lord honored this choice keeping her virginity entact in birthgiving.

This is one part which makes ZERO sense. You can't lose virginity by giving birth.

This is nonsense.

She remained a virgin in flesh and spirit which is to say in total submission to God. Virginity is not the weird obsession with intact pieces of skin.

Multiple levels of meaning are lost on you.

As I said allegory and poetic symmetry is grand and everything, but is never going to be very persuasive to anyone who approaching this stuff from a more analytical, so to speak, perspective.

It isn't lost on me, I just know the taxis which you and LBK often seem to lack.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #81 on: May 11, 2013, 12:12:28 AM »


It doesn't because I don't deny it, only struggle with the understanding.

It doesn't move Heaven and Earth for me.  Not a huge deal.

This is rather rich coming from you. You demand proofs of ancient Orthodox practices such as icons, patens and diskoi, yet you blithely accept the possibility of the Mother of God not being ever-virgin, a notion which only emerged very recently.
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #82 on: May 11, 2013, 12:15:52 AM »

Quote
Would it "tarnish" Mary somehow if Joseph had physically been with her as a husband?

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« Reply #83 on: May 11, 2013, 12:17:24 AM »

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.





Where do you find the time to make such long and easily dismissed posts?

I sleep 3-4 hours a night.  Hope it never catches up to me.

I don't think it's easily dismissed, I think it contains logic.

How hard is it to say "What happened behind closed doors we don't really know, but to say she never had physical relations with Joseph is a complete assumption".   Unless you can absolutely PROVE she didn't, such as the scriptures citing she did not.

From what I can tell, the scriptures seem to indicate that she did have relations with him.

DESPITE THIS,

Whether she did or didn't isn't exactly what bothers me.  What bothers me is the "pitch" of why on Earth somebody would find it so important to say she "never had physical relations with Joseph"?

Nobody knows this, probably except for Mary, Joseph, and God.
Why not just leave it alone?
 

Would it "tarnish" Mary somehow if Joseph had physically been with her as a husband?

It's stated in Scripture. Deal with it. Again, you could make an argument for ambiguity by all Tradition runs against it, so deal with it.

When have you ever posted something here that divided consensus here?

See how people who often disagree with each other, nearly are always in agreement about disagreeing with you?

What is the point?

I struggle with taking a shower ever day, but I don't post about on the internet.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #84 on: May 11, 2013, 12:26:54 AM »

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."




This reinforces what I was saying completely.  This is the old school apologetics, but it reinforces everything.

"He knew her not "until" she gave birth".

Take the entire phrase in context.

It does nothing of the sort. You are wrong. One could argue ambiguity in the Greek but it certainly doesn't suport your claim. In light of the ambiguity, one turns toward long standing Tradition, and its says you are wrong. We are not talking about poetic allegory written by folks removed by many centuries from Christ to take the place of Scripture within the texts of the Church, but early witness and belief.

Come up with something interesting next time. At least you have calmed down on the Yeshua thing, so maybe some progress is being made.

So you are saying "you are wrong because you are wrong" because "tradition says so".

I'm just saying "Why make that kind of pitch?"  "how the heck did they know?" "Why even bring it up?"  "If a married woman is one flesh with her husband it does not tarnish her does it?"  "Why make that a tradition?"  "Did Bishop X have a spy camera on Mary & Joseph taken out of a time capsule 553 years later?"

It's just a huge assumption for NO REASON.

Even if Mary & Joseph were physical every single night that they could be, it's not bad, tarnishing or a sin.  I just don't understand the assumed "pitch" made.    What's the point?

Just makes me thing somewhere along the line somebody thought sex somehow was sinful/unpure between spouses and "they couldn't have Mary that way".

I'd be interested in seeing texts from the 2nd Century about this.

And just so you know Orthonorm, the "Yeshua thing" is a bigger deal than this, but still not a drastic thing.  I still believe Yeshua to be a better translation of his name directly from Aramaic to English than Jesus from Aramaic -> Hebrew to Greek to Old English.  Just phonics & transliteration, not a defiance of God or his commands.    I understand the tradition of the church and why they would say Jesus in English, but do believe there is a better transliteration to be spoken phonetically.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,440



« Reply #85 on: May 11, 2013, 12:30:44 AM »

Quote
Would it "tarnish" Mary somehow if Joseph had physically been with her as a husband?

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.

Sorry LBK, this will never be convincing.

No it wouldn't tarnish anything. This begs a radically odd view of the world that would separate the profane from the sacred which seems to be a radically pagan or at least unChristian notion.

If someone were dying of thirst and a chalice was used to save their life by giving them water, nothing is tarnished. I think the weight of the Gospels would witness to this.

More important than some boring sexual virginity or supernatural maintenance of a flap of skin (why are the midwives washing Christ in some of the frescos and icons I have seen?), the more important virginity is Mary's fidelity to God (the more important and near constant theme regarding the ideal state of Israel in the OT). This virginity it seems to me to be the one promised to all those who strive for such fidelity.

If such fidelity requires an outward sign for the weak and must be maintained through the act of sexual abstinence or the maintenance of a flap of skin, so be it.

More ponderous than not having sex (which I think more than a few oc.netters are quite adept at) is such a young woman consenting to such a terrible responsibility with what seems to be a remarkable degree of "lightness". I think I have more angst over what pair of shoes to buy than Mary had responding to the message she was delivered, so was her faith in God.

This is not to minimize the sexual abstinence and the like, but I think so many get hung up on this issue which seems much less problematic as one begins to believe the more important or at least foundational aspects of the faith.

There is an order to things. If YIM is wringing his hands over the sexual relations of Mary and how to pronounce Jesus' name, there are probably deeper and arguably more important problems at work.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #86 on: May 11, 2013, 12:34:59 AM »


It doesn't because I don't deny it, only struggle with the understanding.

It doesn't move Heaven and Earth for me.  Not a huge deal.

This is rather rich coming from you. You demand proofs of ancient Orthodox practices such as icons, patens and diskoi, yet you blithely accept the possibility of the Mother of God not being ever-virgin, a notion which only emerged very recently.

Ahh, you see the consistency then.

No proof of icons in the ancient church.
No proof of discos in the ancient church.
No proof of asterisk in the ancient church.
No proof of iconostasis in the ancient church.

The "ever virgin" mother of God notion I've always wondered about.   Frankly it was their bedroom.  I will always see her eternally as "ever virgin" as she gave birth to God as a virgin.  

But to cast aside the scripture of Matthew "knew her not till the birth", and twist it somehow (for ABSOLUTELY unknown reasons) to say her and Joseph did NOT know each other, is rather weird.

I'm not saying she was or wasn't always a "virgin".   I don't know...    I don't know any more than somebody in 553.   I do know it was written that she was a virgin who gave birth to God and that Joseph did not know her till after the birth.

But that's not the point.   I just don't understand why she would be bad or tarnished in the eyes of the church or God if she was physically with Joseph after the birth of Christ.  He was her husband through Jewish Matrimony.   Huh
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #87 on: May 11, 2013, 12:36:02 AM »

Quote
(why are the midwives washing Christ in some of the frescos and icons I have seen?)

To show that Christ was fully human as well as divine, that His incarnation was true and complete, that He was born of a woman just as every human being is, and did not materialize into the world like some sort of spirit. Therefore, like all newborns, He had to be washed after His birth.

The only difference between His birth and everybody else's is that His was a seedless conception, and His mother gave birth painlessly and without corruption of body.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #88 on: May 11, 2013, 12:39:05 AM »

Quote
Would it "tarnish" Mary somehow if Joseph had physically been with her as a husband?

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.

Sorry LBK, this will never be convincing.

No it wouldn't tarnish anything. This begs a radically odd view of the world that would separate the profane from the sacred which seems to be a radically pagan or at least unChristian notion.

If someone were dying of thirst and a chalice was used to save their life by giving them water, nothing is tarnished. I think the weight of the Gospels would witness to this.

More important than some boring sexual virginity or supernatural maintenance of a flap of skin (why are the midwives washing Christ in some of the frescos and icons I have seen?), the more important virginity is Mary's fidelity to God (the more important and near constant theme regarding the ideal state of Israel in the OT). This virginity it seems to me to be the one promised to all those who strive for such fidelity.

If such fidelity requires an outward sign for the weak and must be maintained through the act of sexual abstinence or the maintenance of a flap of skin, so be it.

More ponderous than not having sex (which I think more than a few oc.netters are quite adept at) is such a young woman consenting to such a terrible responsibility with what seems to be a remarkable degree of "lightness". I think I have more angst over what pair of shoes to buy than Mary had responding to the message she was delivered, so was her faith in God.

This is not to minimize the sexual abstinence and the like, but I think so many get hung up on this issue which seems much less problematic as one begins to believe the more important or at least foundational aspects of the faith.

There is an order to things. If YIM is wringing his hands over the sexual relations of Mary and how to pronounce Jesus' name, there are probably deeper and arguably more important problems at work.

Also in consideration, the hypothetical is too vexing.

Mary & Joseph were bound in Matrimony.

**Note** not "sexual relationS"

That makes it sound like I was calling her a tramp in a way putting it plural like that.

I'm talking about "one flesh" relationship with her husband in matrimony.  Pure & not sinful.

You may be right though, I may have deeper problems than I know.  Embarrassed
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 #89 on: May 11, 2013, 01:37:03 AM »

A classic: St. Jerome - Against Helvidius.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #90 on: May 11, 2013, 01:37:56 AM »

A classic: St. Jerome - Against Helvidius.
DON'T read that.
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
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: 37,382



« Reply #91 on: May 11, 2013, 01:40:13 AM »

Quote
Would it "tarnish" Mary somehow if Joseph had physically been with her as a husband?

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.

Sorry LBK, this will never be convincing.

No it wouldn't tarnish anything. This begs a radically odd view of the world that would separate the profane from the sacred which seems to be a radically pagan or at least unChristian notion.

If someone were dying of thirst and a chalice was used to save their life by giving them water, nothing is tarnished. I think the weight of the Gospels would witness to this.

More important than some boring sexual virginity or supernatural maintenance of a flap of skin (why are the midwives washing Christ in some of the frescos and icons I have seen?), the more important virginity is Mary's fidelity to God (the more important and near constant theme regarding the ideal state of Israel in the OT). This virginity it seems to me to be the one promised to all those who strive for such fidelity.

If such fidelity requires an outward sign for the weak and must be maintained through the act of sexual abstinence or the maintenance of a flap of skin, so be it.

More ponderous than not having sex (which I think more than a few oc.netters are quite adept at) is such a young woman consenting to such a terrible responsibility with what seems to be a remarkable degree of "lightness". I think I have more angst over what pair of shoes to buy than Mary had responding to the message she was delivered, so was her faith in God.

This is not to minimize the sexual abstinence and the like, but I think so many get hung up on this issue which seems much less problematic as one begins to believe the more important or at least foundational aspects of the faith.

There is an order to things. If YIM is wringing his hands over the sexual relations of Mary and how to pronounce Jesus' name, there are probably deeper and arguably more important problems at work.
I guess you're right.  We do agree more often than once a year.
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
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,825


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #92 on: May 11, 2013, 11:31:07 AM »

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it?

"At that time, on the Sabbath day, Jesus was going through grain fields. Being hungry, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain and to eat them. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, 'Behold, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!'

But Jesus replied, "Have you not read what David did, when he and those who were with him were hungry? He entered into the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for him to eat, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath day, the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and yet remain without guilt? But I tell you that someone greater than the temple is here! If you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice', you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 11:36:07 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 11, 2013, 12:21:26 PM »

I don't think anyone's arguing that you couldn't theoretically use sacred vessels in some "emergency" situation for a life-saving purpose.  Giving drink to a dying person to save their life using sacred vessels, presumably the only ones available, would be an example of this; how could anyone argue that this, too, was not a "sacred" purpose? 

But it's another thing to suggest, for example, that we offer visitors to our parish coffee and tea in the chalices because "They're the best cups we've got, and we need to be good to our guests".  In a non-emergency, reverence ought to prevail. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #94 on: May 11, 2013, 04:37:27 PM »

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.

No, because God redeemed matter. To suggest that it would creates a barrier between humanity and God that Christ allegedly removed at the Incarnation. That being said, Christ orders us to show human kindness and decency to others before adhering to formal religious rules. So if there was a person dying of thirst before our eyes, and the chalice was the only cup we had to put water in, I think the Christian thing to do would be to use the chalice as a drinking cup for that person. That being said, it begs a hypothetical question: if we are supposed to show human decency towards each other, even at the expense of external rules, why can't we say that perhaps the Theotokos gave herself sexually to her husband St. Joseph to satisfy his marital urges so that he didn't resort to fornication or adultery?
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 #95 on: May 11, 2013, 04:59:27 PM »

So if there was a person dying of thirst before our eyes, and the chalice was the only cup we had to put water in, I think the Christian thing to do would be to use the chalice as a drinking cup for that person.

People can die because of severe dehydration. ”Sex starvation” - believe it or not - can never be fatal.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 05:01:10 PM by Romaios » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #96 on: May 11, 2013, 08:08:02 PM »

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.

No, because God redeemed matter. To suggest that it would creates a barrier between humanity and God that Christ allegedly removed at the Incarnation. That being said, Christ orders us to show human kindness and decency to others before adhering to formal religious rules. So if there was a person dying of thirst before our eyes, and the chalice was the only cup we had to put water in, I think the Christian thing to do would be to use the chalice as a drinking cup for that person. That being said, it begs a hypothetical question: if we are supposed to show human decency towards each other, even at the expense of external rules, why can't we say that perhaps the Theotokos gave herself sexually to her husband St. Joseph to satisfy his marital urges so that he didn't resort to fornication or adultery?

I believe James its because at some point somebody was scared of their own nakedness and thought that married couples in a physical relationship were "dirty".   I have no proof of this, but you never know what people can come up with. 

"Eww gross St. Joseph couldn't possibly have copulated with the Theotokos, that would make them so dirty!"

Forgetting and slapping matrimony in the face.

It's the only reason I could think of - other than the possibility of further children by Mary, which of course somehow "became St. Josephs previous children from another marriage".   I don't know.

I just think its a weird claim based on nothing.  Still waiting for writings from the 2nd century speaking of her always being a virgin even after the birth.   Clearly the men in 553 were convinced, but from what?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,106


WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 11, 2013, 08:28:19 PM »

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.

No, because God redeemed matter. To suggest that it would creates a barrier between humanity and God that Christ allegedly removed at the Incarnation. That being said, Christ orders us to show human kindness and decency to others before adhering to formal religious rules. So if there was a person dying of thirst before our eyes, and the chalice was the only cup we had to put water in, I think the Christian thing to do would be to use the chalice as a drinking cup for that person. That being said, it begs a hypothetical question: if we are supposed to show human decency towards each other, even at the expense of external rules, why can't we say that perhaps the Theotokos gave herself sexually to her husband St. Joseph to satisfy his marital urges so that he didn't resort to fornication or adultery?

I believe James its because at some point somebody was scared of their own nakedness and thought that married couples in a physical relationship were "dirty".   I have no proof of this, but you never know what people can come up with. 

"Eww gross St. Joseph couldn't possibly have copulated with the Theotokos, that would make them so dirty!"

Forgetting and slapping matrimony in the face.

It's the only reason I could think of - other than the possibility of further children by Mary, which of course somehow "became St. Josephs previous children from another marriage".   I don't know.

I just think its a weird claim based on nothing.  Still waiting for writings from the 2nd century speaking of her always being a virgin even after the birth.   Clearly the men in 553 were convinced, but from what?

The men in 553 were just 4-5 centuries removed from the life of the Virgin Mary (and there were 4 Ecuemnical Councils that had already occurred if any Bishop was interested in disputing the ever-virginity of Mary) - nothing has changed in the last 14-15 centuries.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #98 on: May 11, 2013, 10:25:57 PM »

So if you can't show me writings of the 2nd century that talks about this important issue, then all I can do is assume the men of 553 made it up.

That's why I posted what happened in the year 1460.  

Only large facts were recorded, not who slept with who.

4-5 centuries (actually 5.5 centuries at the point of discussion) is an awfully long time.   If you were born in 1460 (553 years ago), when you were 32 Columbus would have hit the shores of America.  Almost 300 years later, a constitution & country.  Almost 250 years later, we sit here today.

5.5 centuries is a LONG time to make claim on somebody's bedroom.  Even Nicea in 325....   Of course unless we knew of somebody's bedroom happenings in roughly the year 1690, that would equate the the bishop's expertise of 325 years back (bedroom expertise).

That's why I want to see this teaching in the 2nd century. 100-199 A.D.  If it was really taught, certainly it would have been written somewhere.

But somehow I can't imagine Joseph or the Theotokos sharing bedroom info with the general public either.

But the guys 553 years later SURE KNOW IT!
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 10:27:40 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,106


WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 11, 2013, 10:33:56 PM »

So if you can't show me writings of the 2nd century that talks about this important issue, then all I can do is assume the men of 553 made it up.

If you see the writings from the 2nd century, would you reverse your apostasy and return to the Orthodox Church?  I have the answer for you, no you wouldn't.

That's why I demand to see this teaching in the 2nd century. 100-200 A.D.  If it was really taught, certainly it would have been written somewhere.

Blessed are those who haven't seen but believe (tomorrow is St. Thomas Sunday).

But somehow I can't imagine Joseph or the Theotokos sharing bedroom info with the general public either.

You're right because there was nothing to share.

But the guys 553 years later SURE KNOW IT!

Try 520 years later if Pentecost occurred in the year 33.   Shocked
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #100 on: May 11, 2013, 10:35:58 PM »

Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.

No, because God redeemed matter. To suggest that it would creates a barrier between humanity and God that Christ allegedly removed at the Incarnation. That being said, Christ orders us to show human kindness and decency to others before adhering to formal religious rules. So if there was a person dying of thirst before our eyes, and the chalice was the only cup we had to put water in, I think the Christian thing to do would be to use the chalice as a drinking cup for that person. That being said, it begs a hypothetical question: if we are supposed to show human decency towards each other, even at the expense of external rules, why can't we say that perhaps the Theotokos gave herself sexually to her husband St. Joseph to satisfy his marital urges so that he didn't resort to fornication or adultery?

I believe James its because at some point somebody was scared of their own nakedness and thought that married couples in a physical relationship were "dirty".   I have no proof of this, but you never know what people can come up with. 

"Eww gross St. Joseph couldn't possibly have copulated with the Theotokos, that would make them so dirty!"

Forgetting and slapping matrimony in the face.

It's the only reason I could think of - other than the possibility of further children by Mary, which of course somehow "became St. Josephs previous children from another marriage".   I don't know.

I just think its a weird claim based on nothing.  Still waiting for writings from the 2nd century speaking of her always being a virgin even after the birth.   Clearly the men in 553 were convinced, but from what?

Dude....nevermind
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #101 on: May 11, 2013, 10:37:03 PM »

So who is the father of Jesus, then?  

If it's so ridiculous that Mary could've remained a virgin after the birth of Christ, then it certainly seems ridiculous to believe a bunch of stories about an angel and a conception without the participation of a man when an alternative, but perfectly reasonable, perfectly natural explanation of the origin of that child is possible.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #102 on: May 12, 2013, 01:11:45 AM »

So who is the father of Jesus, then?  

If it's so ridiculous that Mary could've remained a virgin after the birth of Christ, then it certainly seems ridiculous to believe a bunch of stories about an angel and a conception without the participation of a man when an alternative, but perfectly reasonable, perfectly natural explanation of the origin of that child is possible.

This.

If we can believe (and are required, as Orthodox Christians to believe), that God became incarnate, died and rose from the dead, why the resistance against the teaching, and a dogma at that, that the Mother of God remained ever-virgin? If Lazarus could be raised from the dead after four days' burial, and with a corpse that had begun to stink, why is it so preposterous to think The Virgin and St Joseph never slept together?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #103 on: May 12, 2013, 01:57:48 AM »

Christ is risen!
Would it "tarnish" a chalice in which the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated to pour coffee or tea into it and drink from it? Both the chalice and the Mother of God are vessels in which God was/is contained.

No, because God redeemed matter. To suggest that it would creates a barrier between humanity and God that Christ allegedly removed at the Incarnation. That being said, Christ orders us to show human kindness and decency to others before adhering to formal religious rules. So if there was a person dying of thirst before our eyes, and the chalice was the only cup we had to put water in, I think the Christian thing to do would be to use the chalice as a drinking cup for that person. That being said, it begs a hypothetical question: if we are supposed to show human decency towards each other, even at the expense of external rules, why can't we say that perhaps the Theotokos gave herself sexually to her husband St. Joseph to satisfy his marital urges so that he didn't resort to fornication or adultery?

I believe James its because at some point somebody was scared of their own nakedness and thought that married couples in a physical relationship were "dirty".   I have no proof of this, but you never know what people can come up with. 

"Eww gross St. Joseph couldn't possibly have copulated with the Theotokos, that would make them so dirty!"

Forgetting and slapping matrimony in the face.

It's the only reason I could think of - other than the possibility of further children by Mary, which of course somehow "became St. Josephs previous children from another marriage".   I don't know.

I just think its a weird claim based on nothing.  Still waiting for writings from the 2nd century speaking of her always being a virgin even after the birth.   Clearly the men in 553 were convinced, but from what?
Do you obsess this much about your parents love life?
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
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: 37,382



« Reply #104 on: May 12, 2013, 02:07:17 AM »

Christ is risen!
So if you can't show me writings of the 2nd century that talks about this important issue, then all I can do is assume the men of 553 made it up.

If you see the writings from the 2nd century, would you reverse your apostasy and return to the Orthodox Church?  I have the answer for you, no you wouldn't.
There is, so he could, but he hasn't, and won't, so he won't and so you're right.

That's why I demand to see this teaching in the 2nd century. 100-200 A.D.  If it was really taught, certainly it would have been written somewhere.
Oh? Why's that?

Blessed are those who haven't seen but believe (tomorrow is St. Thomas Sunday).
Amen!

I dread to think where our modern day Salome wants to stick his fingers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwife_Salome

But somehow I can't imagine Joseph or the Theotokos sharing bedroom info with the general public either.

You're right because there was nothing to share.
so nothing to write anywhere.

But the guys 553 years later SURE KNOW IT!

Try 520 years later if Pentecost occurred in the year 33.   Shocked
Salome told them.
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
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: 37,382



« Reply #105 on: May 12, 2013, 02:08:19 AM »

Christ is risen!
So who is the father of Jesus, then?  

If it's so ridiculous that Mary could've remained a virgin after the birth of Christ, then it certainly seems ridiculous to believe a bunch of stories about an angel and a conception without the participation of a man when an alternative, but perfectly reasonable, perfectly natural explanation of the origin of that child is possible.

This.

If we can believe (and are required, as Orthodox Christians to believe), that God became incarnate, died and rose from the dead, why the resistance against the teaching, and a dogma at that, that the Mother of God remained ever-virgin? If Lazarus could be raised from the dead after four days' burial, and with a corpse that had begun to stink, why is it so preposterous to think The Virgin and St Joseph never slept together?
Ya'll stop talking sense, ye hear!
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: 172



« Reply #106 on: May 12, 2013, 08:59:38 AM »

St Joseph and the Mother of God followed the example of the Lord who humbled himself for our sake:
Quote
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8

St Joseph and the Most Holy Mother of God, freely and willingly chose to totally dedicate themselves to the infant Christ, the Savior of the world. They freely and willingly set aside all else to give undivided devotion to participate in the salvation of the world. Holy Tradition keeps the memory of their dedication and devotion.  
Quote
And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38)
This was her assent to be the Mother of God, the Most Holy Theotokos--for eternity!

Quote
But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:20-21
St Joseph obeyed the angel indicating his assent.

St Paul freely chose the unmarried state for the sake of the gospel.
Quote
1 Corinthians 9
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?..

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ...

For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.

It is hard to grasp the utter dedication of the Saints much less imitate them. Lord have mercy.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 09:06:51 AM by Fotina02 » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #107 on: May 12, 2013, 05:24:47 PM »

So if you can't show me writings of the 2nd century that talks about this important issue, then all I can do is assume the men of 553 made it up.

If you see the writings from the 2nd century, would you reverse your apostasy and return to the Orthodox Church?  I have the answer for you, no you wouldn't.

That's why I demand to see this teaching in the 2nd century. 100-200 A.D.  If it was really taught, certainly it would have been written somewhere.

Blessed are those who haven't seen but believe (tomorrow is St. Thomas Sunday).

But somehow I can't imagine Joseph or the Theotokos sharing bedroom info with the general public either.

You're right because there was nothing to share.

But the guys 553 years later SURE KNOW IT!

Try 520 years later if Pentecost occurred in the year 33.   Shocked

This is one of those times where the point was ENTIRELY missed.  SolEX01 knows EXACTLY what did and did not go on behind closed doors apparently.  2000 years later!

Even the logic is wrong.

Assuming my math applied till after Pentecost... wrong too....   My logic applies when he was 1, 3, 8, 10, 14, 20, 26,...  
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 05:25:43 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #108 on: May 12, 2013, 05:32:47 PM »

That's why I demand to see this teaching in the 2nd century. 100-200 A.D.  If it was really taught, certainly it would have been written somewhere.
Oh? Why's that?

Because if they were so sure about it in 553, certainly it would have be recorded early on.

This stuff is PURE speculation on the church's behalf.  I'm not saying its wrong, but its pulled out of nothing based on nothing.  I totally believe that somewhere along the line, some celibate guy thinks sex was somehow dirty (even between spouses).... Oh no we can't have Mary doing that....

My personal opinion is that they were husband and wife, and there is nothing sinful involved.  I can totally respect & honor the Theotokos whether or not she was physically involved with Joseph.

My question stands. 
IF Mary had physical relations with Joseph, would that somehow tarnish her or make her less pure in the eyes of the Eastern Orthodox Christian?

Also -  I'm still waiting for an EARLY writing on this subject if there even is one.   Otherwise I'll just have to assume it was pulled out of thin air that she was a virgin all of her life (after the birth of Christ).  I fully believe she was a virgin at his birth as it was written.
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 #109 on: May 12, 2013, 05:37:30 PM »

Assuming my math applied till after Pentecost... wrong too....   My logic applies when he was 1, 3, 8, 10, 14, 20, 26,...  

Some things defy one's personal logic. Ἡρώδης ληρώδης...
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,106


WWW
« Reply #110 on: May 12, 2013, 05:39:27 PM »

So if you can't show me writings of the 2nd century that talks about this important issue, then all I can do is assume the men of 553 made it up.

If you see the writings from the 2nd century, would you reverse your apostasy and return to the Orthodox Church?  I have the answer for you, no you wouldn't.

That's why I demand to see this teaching in the 2nd century. 100-200 A.D.  If it was really taught, certainly it would have been written somewhere.

Blessed are those who haven't seen but believe (tomorrow is St. Thomas Sunday).

But somehow I can't imagine Joseph or the Theotokos sharing bedroom info with the general public either.

You're right because there was nothing to share.

But the guys 553 years later SURE KNOW IT!

Try 520 years later if Pentecost occurred in the year 33.   Shocked

This is one of those times where the point was ENTIRELY missed.  SolEX01 knows EXACTLY what did and did not go on behind closed doors apparently.  2000 years later!

I see.  You don't believe that anything can be believed for 2,000 years.

Even the logic is wrong.

Yours?

Assuming my math applied till after Pentecost... wrong too....   My logic applies when he was 1, 3, 8, 10, 14, 20, 26,...  

Can you stick on topic and not deviate into other things that you don't believe?   police
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #111 on: May 12, 2013, 06:10:07 PM »

That's why I demand to see this teaching in the 2nd century. 100-200 A.D.  If it was really taught, certainly it would have been written somewhere.
Oh? Why's that?

Because if they were so sure about it in 553, certainly it would have be recorded early on.

This stuff is PURE speculation on the church's behalf.  I'm not saying its wrong, but its pulled out of nothing based on nothing.  I totally believe that somewhere along the line, some celibate guy thinks sex was somehow dirty (even between spouses).... Oh no we can't have Mary doing that....

My personal opinion is that they were husband and wife, and there is nothing sinful involved.  I can totally respect & honor the Theotokos whether or not she was physically involved with Joseph.

My question stands. 
IF Mary had physical relations with Joseph, would that somehow tarnish her or make her less pure in the eyes of the Eastern Orthodox Christian?

Also -  I'm still waiting for an EARLY writing on this subject if there even is one.   Otherwise I'll just have to assume it was pulled out of thin air that she was a virgin all of her life (after the birth of Christ).  I fully believe she was a virgin at his birth as it was written.
OK Thomas.
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #112 on: May 12, 2013, 08:23:56 PM »

OK Thomas.

Don't be dissin' on Thomas now.  At least he believed and went to the end of the earth to preach to my people, some of whom believed, and others of whom speared him to death. 

The jury's still out here...  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,382



« Reply #113 on: May 12, 2013, 08:27:02 PM »

OK Thomas.

Don't be dissin' on Thomas now.  At least he believed and went to the end of the earth to preach to my people, some of whom believed, and others of whom speared him to death. 

The jury's still out here...  Tongue
As I always point out, although he said he wouldn't believe until he stuck his fingers in the wounds, he in fact did believe before.

Mar Toma pray for us!
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #114 on: May 13, 2013, 11:22:22 AM »

That's why I demand to see this teaching in the 2nd century. 100-200 A.D.  If it was really taught, certainly it would have been written somewhere.
Oh? Why's that?

Because if they were so sure about it in 553, certainly it would have be recorded early on.

This stuff is PURE speculation on the church's behalf.  I'm not saying its wrong, but its pulled out of nothing based on nothing.  I totally believe that somewhere along the line, some celibate guy thinks sex was somehow dirty (even between spouses).... Oh no we can't have Mary doing that....

My personal opinion is that they were husband and wife, and there is nothing sinful involved.  I can totally respect & honor the Theotokos whether or not she was physically involved with Joseph.

My question stands. 
IF Mary had physical relations with Joseph, would that somehow tarnish her or make her less pure in the eyes of the Eastern Orthodox Christian?

Also -  I'm still waiting for an EARLY writing on this subject if there even is one.   Otherwise I'll just have to assume it was pulled out of thin air that she was a virgin all of her life (after the birth of Christ).  I fully believe she was a virgin at his birth as it was written.
OK Thomas.

Please. don't insult St. Thomas
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,326



« Reply #115 on: May 13, 2013, 02:14:11 PM »

I wonder if St. Matthew had ANY idea that so many people would be examining his gospel for a better understanding on the sex life (or lack thereof) of St. Joseph and Mary.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #116 on: May 13, 2013, 02:53:41 PM »

One of my criticisms of the Orthodox Church is that the earliest authority we have on so many issues only goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at the earliest. I'd like more sources from the 2nd and 1st centuries to prove our doctrines. One example is Iconography; I have nothing against it, but, I can't find anything early to suggest that it was a part of worship. Sure, we have the stories of St. Luke being the first Iconographer and all, but where is the evidence? Those just seem like oral myths that developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries with really no earlier evidence to prove them.
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.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,326



« Reply #117 on: May 13, 2013, 02:55:51 PM »

Considering Christians and Christian writings were being destroyed wholesale in the first 3 centuries, it is a miracle that ANY documentation survived.  The reason we have so much stuff from the time period after that is it was finally legal to own it then.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #118 on: May 13, 2013, 03:13:39 PM »

One of my criticisms of the Orthodox Church is that the earliest authority we have on so many issues only goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at the earliest. I'd like more sources from the 2nd and 1st centuries to prove our doctrines. One example is Iconography; I have nothing against it, but, I can't find anything early to suggest that it was a part of worship. Sure, we have the stories of St. Luke being the first Iconographer and all, but where is the evidence? Those just seem like oral myths that developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries with really no earlier evidence to prove them.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that because there is no WRITTEN evidence of some teaching before a date, that teaching did not exist before that date? That is a very questionable logical leap. In any case, the Proto-evangelium of James is from the 2nd century.

In response to the OP, check out "The Life of the Virgin Mary" by Dormition Skete. It is absolutely packed with information and a huge list of references, including the traditions surrounding St Joseph.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 03:15:30 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #119 on: May 13, 2013, 03:15:48 PM »

One of my criticisms of the Orthodox Church is that the earliest authority we have on so many issues only goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at the earliest. I'd like more sources from the 2nd and 1st centuries to prove our doctrines. One example is Iconography; I have nothing against it, but, I can't find anything early to suggest that it was a part of worship. Sure, we have the stories of St. Luke being the first Iconographer and all, but where is the evidence? Those just seem like oral myths that developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries with really no earlier evidence to prove them.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that because there is no WRITTEN evidence of some teaching before a date, that teaching did not exist? That is a very questionable logical leap.

Because there is no one alive from back then to confirm whether or not the oral stories are true or really went back that far. Written evidence is the only evidence we have that bears witness to that period of time.
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.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,326



« Reply #120 on: May 13, 2013, 03:24:06 PM »

I'll probably be anathemized, but for me, many of the pious teachings of the Orthodox don't really affect me much.  I believe them because the Church teaches it, but if it was somehow found out that St. Joseph wasn't that much of a saint, that he ran out on Mary after getting her pregnant (with some other baby, not with Christ). That would be disappointing, but it wouldn't change how I view my faith or the Church.  If it was somehow discovered that Jesus never resurrected, THAT would definitely change my faith.  If it was proven that Christ was the illegitimate child of a Roman soldier, THAT would definitely be a game changer for me too.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #121 on: May 13, 2013, 03:25:27 PM »

One of my criticisms of the Orthodox Church is that the earliest authority we have on so many issues only goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at the earliest. I'd like more sources from the 2nd and 1st centuries to prove our doctrines. One example is Iconography; I have nothing against it, but, I can't find anything early to suggest that it was a part of worship. Sure, we have the stories of St. Luke being the first Iconographer and all, but where is the evidence? Those just seem like oral myths that developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries with really no earlier evidence to prove them.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that because there is no WRITTEN evidence of some teaching before a date, that teaching did not exist? That is a very questionable logical leap.

Because there is no one alive from back then to confirm whether or not the oral stories are true or really went back that far. Written evidence is the only evidence we have that bears witness to that period of time.
the stories would still be true with or without written evidence since they fit into the larger mythical structure. it's a bit naive to ask  for "evidence".
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #122 on: May 13, 2013, 03:35:43 PM »

One of my criticisms of the Orthodox Church is that the earliest authority we have on so many issues only goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at the earliest. I'd like more sources from the 2nd and 1st centuries to prove our doctrines. One example is Iconography; I have nothing against it, but, I can't find anything early to suggest that it was a part of worship. Sure, we have the stories of St. Luke being the first Iconographer and all, but where is the evidence? Those just seem like oral myths that developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries with really no earlier evidence to prove them.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that because there is no WRITTEN evidence of some teaching before a date, that teaching did not exist? That is a very questionable logical leap.

Because there is no one alive from back then to confirm whether or not the oral stories are true or really went back that far. Written evidence is the only evidence we have that bears witness to that period of time.

Why do you assume that, without written confirmation, it didn't exist? Why not assume that it DID exist, absent evidence to the contrary? Has it occurred to you that perhaps some written documentation was lost in the meanwhile? How about the idea that these traditions were handed down orally, without the need for writing?

The whole Orthodox Church shares the same traditions about Mary Theotokos and St Joseph, which to me is strong evidence for an authentic tradition. Where's the evidence that Christians believed differently back then? In any case, there is plenty of written evidence already from the 2nd century that matches what we believe e.g. about Mary's conception, birth and marriage, such as the Proto-evangelium. Why are you ignoring this?
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,636


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #123 on: May 13, 2013, 03:41:45 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.



Post of the month nominee. Well stated.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,636


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #124 on: May 13, 2013, 03:46:27 PM »

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.



Awesome post. Through our hymnology, we learn much about our faith.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,636


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #125 on: May 13, 2013, 03:51:20 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?



IIRC it was Maria.

No. It was not I. There are plenty of married saints. Let us not forget that St. Peter was married too.
The family of St. Basil are all canonized saints as his mother and father are saints and so were his brothers and sisters.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 03:52:42 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #126 on: May 13, 2013, 03:55:08 PM »

That was Zenovia.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,636


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #127 on: May 13, 2013, 03:56:01 PM »

Quote
 It's the teaching specific, which I really can't find too much information on that bothers me.

What more specific Orthodox teaching could there be on the matter, when her ever-virginity is a dogma of the Church, and is constantly and unwaveringly expressed in innumerable Orthodox hymns and prayers??

Yet again, you're trying to impose your own thoughts and feelings into a teaching of the Church which is crystal-clear, unequivocal, and not negotiable.

There's even an anathema against those who deny her every-virginity.
Where?

Here's one I quickly found:

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema. (Fifth Ecumenical Council)

QFT

So why are we continuing to discuss this topic?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #128 on: May 13, 2013, 03:59:45 PM »

One of my criticisms of the Orthodox Church is that the earliest authority we have on so many issues only goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at the earliest. I'd like more sources from the 2nd and 1st centuries to prove our doctrines. One example is Iconography; I have nothing against it, but, I can't find anything early to suggest that it was a part of worship. Sure, we have the stories of St. Luke being the first Iconographer and all, but where is the evidence? Those just seem like oral myths that developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries with really no earlier evidence to prove them.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that because there is no WRITTEN evidence of some teaching before a date, that teaching did not exist? That is a very questionable logical leap.

Because there is no one alive from back then to confirm whether or not the oral stories are true or really went back that far. Written evidence is the only evidence we have that bears witness to that period of time.

JamesR, this sums up the major issues I have with the church itself.  Something as important to the Eastern Orthodox church such as iconography, and there is NO WRITTEN RECORD.   Not only that, there are not any icons preserved from those periods.   Only the legend of St. Luke.

However, the church does sing the psalms.  Also the EO believe in the Eucharist as the 2nd century Christians.

That said there are some things of the earliest church but most things occurred AFTER 300.  I get ripped all the time on here for just stating the obvious truth and fact.  

Things made up out of thin air.  Discos, asterisk, iconostasis, the fact pushed on that Mary & St. Joseph never had sex after Christ was born....    The gospel of Matthew makes a pretty clear indication that:

Joseph did not know her till after the birth.
The word "till" translates into "until" in other parts of the scriptures.

Joseph did not know her until after the birth.

But we get told by men 553 years later that "she was forever a virgin and never engaged in physical relation with St. Joseph".

Funniest thing about this argument is that truly it would NOT MATTER.  If you think about it, a woman is pure if she is with her husband.  So Mary & Joseph would be pure in a physical relationship bound in matrimony that GOD promoted.

Whether she did or not is not the point however, it's the fact that somebody came out and said "She didn't" at a council and the entire church bought into it.  553 years after the birth.

The reason James that I consult the earliest writings is I seek the truth past anything that "just came about" has "said" or "created".   I am resolute in saying "I don't know", as I don't.  And I certainly believe a bishop 500 miles away 553 years apart knew of what was in that bedroom.  AND IT DOESN'T matter, it's just the fact "he says so and passes it off as fact".

Thus the "ever virgin" status exists in many many EO prayers.   As I've stated in previous posts,  I can accept "ever virgin" as always recognizing the virgin birth forever, but to state "Joseph never was physical with her" is so bizarre.

Again it only draws two conclusions:
1) Joseph or the Theotokos talked about their bedroom activities (probably to several people), and for some odd reason it was never recorded but passed orally (no telephone game applies) for 500+ years and it was the absolute correct message.

2) A celibate bishop decided that sex in marriage was somehow defiling or tarnishing a married woman.  That somehow the bearer of God who was "one flesh" with her husband would be reduced somehow through physical means.  This slaps matrimony in the face.

But it doesn't matter to me entirely if she did or didn't.  What matters is how it seems made up.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 12,987


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #129 on: May 13, 2013, 04:05:14 PM »

I think some people aren't satisfied unless figures of the faith are just like them. Insecurity, a demanding sense of democracy, ego - I don't know, but they just want to wish away the things that take strong faith to believe.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #130 on: May 13, 2013, 04:08:51 PM »

One of my criticisms of the Orthodox Church is that the earliest authority we have on so many issues only goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at the earliest. I'd like more sources from the 2nd and 1st centuries to prove our doctrines. One example is Iconography; I have nothing against it, but, I can't find anything early to suggest that it was a part of worship. Sure, we have the stories of St. Luke being the first Iconographer and all, but where is the evidence? Those just seem like oral myths that developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries with really no earlier evidence to prove them.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that because there is no WRITTEN evidence of some teaching before a date, that teaching did not exist? That is a very questionable logical leap.

Because there is no one alive from back then to confirm whether or not the oral stories are true or really went back that far. Written evidence is the only evidence we have that bears witness to that period of time.

Why do you assume that, without written confirmation, it didn't exist? Why not assume that it DID exist, absent evidence to the contrary? Has it occurred to you that perhaps some written documentation was lost in the meanwhile? How about the idea that these traditions were handed down orally, without the need for writing?

The whole Orthodox Church shares the same traditions about Mary Theotokos and St Joseph, which to me is strong evidence for an authentic tradition. Where's the evidence that Christians believed differently back then? In any case, there is plenty of written evidence already from the 2nd century that matches what we believe e.g. about Mary's conception, birth and marriage, such as the Proto-evangelium. Why are you ignoring this?

I for one understand this.  So there is evidence of these aspects of Mary recorded.  No problem there at all.   Easy to see it and understand it.  But on the "no physical after the birth", well that's a claim not recorded with the other stuff.  It is broadly taught, without backing of any kind.

I can back up the EO Eucharist with writings of early Christians.
I can back up several other teachings of the EO church with the writings.

Unfortunately, these writings could to the Lutherans, RC, and EO church.  (amongst others).

But on such a personal topic of physical contact, on prayers recited so often, and the teaching of the church so strong on the issue.... There is nothing backing it up that was written.  Logical is strange too in relation to matrimony and God stating "one flesh".

Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 13, 2013, 04:13:43 PM »

That said there are some things of the earliest church but most things occurred AFTER 300.  I get ripped all the time on here for just stating the obvious truth and fact.  

Things made up out of thin air.  Discos, asterisk, iconostasis,

I never thought someone can hate so much liturgical utensils. What did they do to you?

Quote
I can accept "ever virgin" as always recognizing the virgin birth forever, but to state "Joseph never was physical with her" is so bizarre.

This statement is bizarre. Or illogical at least.

BTW Wouldn't it be epic to have God as an uncle? Imagine: "- That Dude with a beard is my mother's Brother. He is the God too". Sound epic for me.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,106


WWW
« Reply #132 on: May 13, 2013, 04:19:57 PM »

One of my criticisms of the Orthodox Church is that the earliest authority we have on so many issues only goes back to the 3rd and 4th centuries at the earliest. I'd like more sources from the 2nd and 1st centuries to prove our doctrines. One example is Iconography; I have nothing against it, but, I can't find anything early to suggest that it was a part of worship. Sure, we have the stories of St. Luke being the first Iconographer and all, but where is the evidence? Those just seem like oral myths that developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries with really no earlier evidence to prove them.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that because there is no WRITTEN evidence of some teaching before a date, that teaching did not exist? That is a very questionable logical leap.

Because there is no one alive from back then to confirm whether or not the oral stories are true or really went back that far. Written evidence is the only evidence we have that bears witness to that period of time.

< snip >

Again it only draws two conclusions:
1) Joseph or the Theotokos talked about their bedroom activities (probably to several people), and for some odd reason it was never recorded but passed orally (no telephone game applies) for 500+ years and it was the absolute correct message.

Talk about your own bedroom activities on this board.  Nope, I didn't think you would.  As if we really cared.   Roll Eyes

In your world, the Virgin Mary would go on Oprah or Dr. Phil and "spill the beans."

2) A celibate bishop decided that sex in marriage was somehow defiling or tarnishing a married woman.

Bishops became celibate so that they wouldn't pass down their office from father to son and become like Emperors.  You said it; cite an Orthodox Bishop who has taught what you just said.

That somehow the bearer of God who was "one flesh" with her husband would be reduced somehow through physical means.  This slaps my definition of matrimony in the face.

Your definition of matrimony mandates sexual intercourse.

But it doesn't matter to me entirely if she did or didn't.  What matters is how it seems made up.

318 Bishops had the chance to debunk Mary's ever-virginity at Nicaea.  Instead, they debunked Arius.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 04:27:07 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #133 on: May 13, 2013, 04:25:20 PM »

Weren't married bishops quite common in times of Chalcedony?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #134 on: May 13, 2013, 04:43:09 PM »

The gospel of Matthew makes a pretty clear indication that:

Joseph did not know her till after the birth.
The word "till" translates into "until" in other parts of the scriptures.

Joseph did not know her until after the birth.

But we get told by men 553 years later that "she was forever a virgin and never engaged in physical relation with St. Joseph".

Funniest thing about this argument is that truly it would NOT MATTER.  If you think about it, a woman is pure if she is with her husband.  So Mary & Joseph would be pure in a physical relationship bound in matrimony that GOD promoted.

YIM (unless I'm mistaken, this seems to be the commonly used abbreviation of your name),

I have some questions for you:

1)  St Matthew makes a point of saying that Joseph didn't know Mary until after the birth, and you take this to mean that they had normal marital relations after Jesus' birth (cf. Mt. 1.25).  Assuming you're right for argument's sake, what do you think is the point of Matthew's singling out the sex life of this particular couple?  How do we as Christians benefit from knowing definitely that they had sex, as opposed to just keeping quiet about it and letting it remain "none of anyone's business"?  No where else in the NT, as far as I know, does anyone make an explicit point of affirming "So-and-so and his wife had sex regularly".  Why these two?   

2)  If it "truly does NOT MATTER", then why are you so intent on rejecting this teaching as an un-Scriptural creation of some celibate men hundreds of years later?  Whether you want to make Mary and Joseph like "normal" people, or whether you protest a perceived attack on the sanctity of matrimony, or whether you protest the right of celibates to speak about sexual matters, or any such thing, it clearly "DOES MATTER" to you.  Why insist that it doesn't matter and then spend so much energy to fight it?  What does it mean for you?

3)  I asked a question earlier directed to you, but perhaps you didn't see it because I didn't specifically address you.  Now I do: Who is the father of Jesus?         
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,636


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #135 on: May 13, 2013, 04:53:16 PM »

The gospel of Matthew makes a pretty clear indication that:

Joseph did not know her till after the birth.
The word "till" translates into "until" in other parts of the scriptures.

Joseph did not know her until after the birth.

But we get told by men 553 years later that "she was forever a virgin and never engaged in physical relation with St. Joseph".

Funniest thing about this argument is that truly it would NOT MATTER.  If you think about it, a woman is pure if she is with her husband.  So Mary & Joseph would be pure in a physical relationship bound in matrimony that GOD promoted.

YIM (unless I'm mistaken, this seems to be the commonly used abbreviation of your name), ...

3)  I asked a question earlier directed to you, but perhaps you didn't see it because I didn't specifically address you.  Now I do: Who is the father of Jesus?         

This is a crucial question. There are some protestants who believe that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus and that Christ became God with His baptism. Now isn't that what Arianism preaches, that there was a time when Jesus was not God?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #136 on: May 13, 2013, 05:28:23 PM »

AFAIK Arianism preached Jesus was no God at all.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #137 on: May 14, 2013, 07:17:09 AM »

The gospel of Matthew makes a pretty clear indication that:

Joseph did not know her till after the birth.
The word "till" translates into "until" in other parts of the scriptures.

Joseph did not know her until after the birth.

But we get told by men 553 years later that "she was forever a virgin and never engaged in physical relation with St. Joseph".

Funniest thing about this argument is that truly it would NOT MATTER.  If you think about it, a woman is pure if she is with her husband.  So Mary & Joseph would be pure in a physical relationship bound in matrimony that GOD promoted.

YIM (unless I'm mistaken, this seems to be the commonly used abbreviation of your name), ...

3)  I asked a question earlier directed to you, but perhaps you didn't see it because I didn't specifically address you.  Now I do: Who is the father of Jesus?        

This is a crucial question. There are some protestants who believe that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus and that Christ became God with His baptism. Now isn't that what Arianism preaches, that there was a time when Jesus was not God?

Arianism taught that God the Son was created (that there was a time when the Son was not) not that there was a time when Christ was not the Son of God. The latter belief is Adoptionism and often the idea is that He was adopted as God's Son at His baptism rather than being the Word incarnate. In Arianism, Christ was still the Word incarnate it's just that the Word was a lesser, created god, not eternally begotten of the Father.

James
« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 07:17:55 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #138 on: May 14, 2013, 07:55:45 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?



IIRC it was Maria.

No. It was not I. There are plenty of married saints. Let us not forget that St. Peter was married too.
The family of St. Basil are all canonized saints as his mother and father are saints and so were his brothers and sisters.

My apologies, Maria, it was Zenovia as Michal said, not you.  Embarrassed
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,636


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #139 on: May 14, 2013, 07:58:20 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?



IIRC it was Maria.

No. It was not I. There are plenty of married saints. Let us not forget that St. Peter was married too.
The family of St. Basil are all canonized saints as his mother and father are saints and so were his brothers and sisters.

My apologies, Maria, it was Zenovia as Michal said, not you.  Embarrassed

No problems. Zenovia has not posted here in quite a long time.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #140 on: June 13, 2013, 10:12:54 PM »

The gospel of Matthew makes a pretty clear indication that:

Joseph did not know her till after the birth.
The word "till" translates into "until" in other parts of the scriptures.

Joseph did not know her until after the birth.

But we get told by men 553 years later that "she was forever a virgin and never engaged in physical relation with St. Joseph".

Funniest thing about this argument is that truly it would NOT MATTER.  If you think about it, a woman is pure if she is with her husband.  So Mary & Joseph would be pure in a physical relationship bound in matrimony that GOD promoted.

YIM (unless I'm mistaken, this seems to be the commonly used abbreviation of your name),

I have some questions for you:

1)  St Matthew makes a point of saying that Joseph didn't know Mary until after the birth, and you take this to mean that they had normal marital relations after Jesus' birth (cf. Mt. 1.25).  Assuming you're right for argument's sake, what do you think is the point of Matthew's singling out the sex life of this particular couple?  How do we as Christians benefit from knowing definitely that they had sex, as opposed to just keeping quiet about it and letting it remain "none of anyone's business"?  No where else in the NT, as far as I know, does anyone make an explicit point of affirming "So-and-so and his wife had sex regularly".  Why these two?   

2)  If it "truly does NOT MATTER", then why are you so intent on rejecting this teaching as an un-Scriptural creation of some celibate men hundreds of years later?  Whether you want to make Mary and Joseph like "normal" people, or whether you protest a perceived attack on the sanctity of matrimony, or whether you protest the right of celibates to speak about sexual matters, or any such thing, it clearly "DOES MATTER" to you.  Why insist that it doesn't matter and then spend so much energy to fight it?  What does it mean for you?

3)  I asked a question earlier directed to you, but perhaps you didn't see it because I didn't specifically address you.  Now I do: Who is the father of Jesus?         

1) There were many couples who had their sex life revealed in ways.  Abraham & Solomon for quick instance (if you need more I can easily provide).   Their sex life wasn't "revealed" in graphic detail, it was merely pointing out that they "knew each other".   I believe this could have been pointed out to preserve the virgin birth of Christ.   If she was pregnant, and they had relations, there would be no "virgin birth".

2) Read again, I was talking in the context that "It would not matter if Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Christ".   They were married after all, thus physical relations are completely sinless.  This would not taint the virgin birth at all. 

3) I didn't answer this one & the post because I thought it was sort of jabbing at me by the final question.  I believe God the Father (YHWH/Jehovah) is the father of Yeshua (Jesus).  I believe he was both man & God.   I believe Joseph was his human parent while he was on Earth, as was Mary.

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: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #141 on: June 13, 2013, 11:38:24 PM »

Thanks!

1) There were many couples who had their sex life revealed in ways.  Abraham & Solomon for quick instance (if you need more I can easily provide).   Their sex life wasn't "revealed" in graphic detail, it was merely pointing out that they "knew each other".   I believe this could have been pointed out to preserve the virgin birth of Christ.   If she was pregnant, and they had relations, there would be no "virgin birth".

This doesn't really address the question I asked, though.  Sure, Scripture talks about certain people "knowing" their wives, having children, etc., but we don't claim about those children the things we claim about Christ. 

The Virgin Birth establishes that Jesus has no human father: God alone is his Father.  But, if you think Matthew is implying/saying that Joseph and Mary commenced normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus, what's the point of his inclusion of that "fact"?  Even if we accept for argument's sake that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus that appear in the Gospels are the children of such a union, what's the point of Matthew pointing out that they are the offspring of Joseph and Mary through normal relations?  Wouldn't that just be assumed?  The conception and birth of Jesus are set up to be different because he is different...but if these two parents go on to have other children "normally", why would you believe such an improbable story about one kid's birth involving angels, dreams, visions, and biological impossibilities?  It's much easier to believe that Joseph and Mary got a little too impatient waiting for marriage, made a mistake, kept things under wraps, and by the time the child was born, they were already out of town, living in a foreign country for some years, etc...enough time for gossip to die down and to return to a normal life.  In other words, ____ happens.  Hardly a miracle. 

I'm just not convinced that Matthew means to say what you think he is saying.  It doesn't "add" anything positive, it just makes everything else look weaker.       

Quote
2) Read again, I was talking in the context that "It would not matter if Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Christ".   They were married after all, thus physical relations are completely sinless.  This would not taint the virgin birth at all. 

Well, I know people who've been raped by their spouses.  That's an extreme case, but clearly it's not the case that marriage alone makes physical relations between spouses "completely sinless". 

Would it taint the Virgin Birth?  Yes.  Not because sex between spouses is sinful.  But because it casts doubt on the entire idea.  It's easier to believe that Joseph and Mary "had Jesus the regular way" and later on God came and "adopted" their kid than it is to believe the Virgin Birth.  It's not about whether or not sex is yucky, it's about whether or not this story is nonsense. 

Quote
3) I didn't answer this one & the post because I thought it was sort of jabbing at me by the final question.  I believe God the Father (YHWH/Jehovah) is the father of Yeshua (Jesus).  I believe he was both man & God.   I believe Joseph was his human parent while he was on Earth, as was Mary.

I'm sorry.  It wasn't my intent to insult or offend you, I just felt like it was an important question that I asked before and either you missed it or were ignoring it. 

Anyway, I don't understand your reply.  If you believe that "Joseph was his human parent while he was on Earth, as was Mary", is that to say that Joseph was Jesus' biological parent?  Because Mary was certainly his biological parent. 

If you believe, on the other hand, that God is the father of Jesus, and Mary is his mother, and Joseph is sort of a "foster father" or "legal father" or "guardian" or whatever the proper term is, then why do you believe that?  If Joseph and Mary were perfectly capable of having other children, and if that's what you think Matthew's implying, why believe that Jesus wasn't conceived normally?   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
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: 1,641


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #142 on: June 14, 2013, 09:11:22 PM »

If Joseph and Mary were perfectly capable of having other children, and if that's what you think Matthew's implying, why believe that Jesus wasn't conceived normally?   

Because the Gospels teach that he was not.
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.“
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #143 on: June 14, 2013, 10:20:02 PM »

Sure, but they don't teach that Joseph and Mary went on to have other children.  If you interpret Mt. 1.25 to mean that they definitely did have children afterwards in the normal manner, then the issue is not about whether or not it was a sinful thing for two married people to do; the issue is that there's no reason to believe that this "Virgin Birth" was anything of the sort.  Sure, the Gospels may say that, but so what?  It's in the interest of a religion to protect its founder from any hint of scandal.  All the better if they actually buy it.   

Among other things, the ever-virginity of Our Lady is the assurance that Jesus' Father is who we and the Gospels say he is.  You start messing around with that, and you raise the possibility that there was, in fact, messing around.  If one miracle is impossible, why would any other be possible?     
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,489


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #144 on: June 14, 2013, 10:30:29 PM »

  If one miracle is impossible, why would any other be possible?     

THIS!!
Logged
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: 1,641


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #145 on: June 15, 2013, 09:33:30 PM »

Sure, but they don't teach that Joseph and Mary went on to have other children.  If you interpret Mt. 1.25 to mean that they definitely did have children afterwards in the normal manner, then the issue is not about whether or not it was a sinful thing for two married people to do; the issue is that there's no reason to believe that this "Virgin Birth" was anything of the sort.  Sure, the Gospels may say that, but so what?  It's in the interest of a religion to protect its founder from any hint of scandal.  All the better if they actually buy it.   

Among other things, the ever-virginity of Our Lady is the assurance that Jesus' Father is who we and the Gospels say he is.  You start messing around with that, and you raise the possibility that there was, in fact, messing around.  If one miracle is impossible, why would any other be possible?     

The truth is even her parents and husband were not sure what to think, but this is the way of God in all whom he requested specific acts.

i have had dreams that have shown me future events, but me trying to prove that to you or anyone else is utterly impossible. Because they were never clear until I saw them happen years later.

In the case of Mary she was already pregnant by the time she could tell anyone, so how could they know for sure.

My response to what I think is being discussed here about her having other children is that she may have, that does not change her status as a virgin when she was visited by an angel. I do not think you can accurately say from the Gospels she never had other children with Joseph afterward, and I do not see that changes the story of Immaculate conception.

It seems to me that the church has always been hurt by trying to micromanage all these fine details that gets it in trouble, I see those definitions as wrong, because they are trying to use the Gospels to say what it was not meant to say.This issue did not become church doctrine until after the second century. So just as other things it wants to define through the Bible, are not always as they were meant by the writers of the Gospels who had access to people who were there.

Mary was in contact with the people whom were spreading the Gospel in the beginning , so she had plenty of discussions about Jesus birth and childhood , as well as the later ministry with his followers, so it is wrong that this is always treated as though they had no way of knowing these things. Of course they had to take her word, but did so on the basis of what they learned from Jesus.being who he claimed
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.“
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #146 on: June 15, 2013, 10:39:32 PM »

Thanks!

1) There were many couples who had their sex life revealed in ways.  Abraham & Solomon for quick instance (if you need more I can easily provide).   Their sex life wasn't "revealed" in graphic detail, it was merely pointing out that they "knew each other".   I believe this could have been pointed out to preserve the virgin birth of Christ.   If she was pregnant, and they had relations, there would be no "virgin birth".

This doesn't really address the question I asked, though.  Sure, Scripture talks about certain people "knowing" their wives, having children, etc., but we don't claim about those children the things we claim about Christ. 

The Virgin Birth establishes that Jesus has no human father: God alone is his Father.  But, if you think Matthew is implying/saying that Joseph and Mary commenced normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus, what's the point of his inclusion of that "fact"?  Even if we accept for argument's sake that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus that appear in the Gospels are the children of such a union, what's the point of Matthew pointing out that they are the offspring of Joseph and Mary through normal relations?  Wouldn't that just be assumed?  The conception and birth of Jesus are set up to be different because he is different...but if these two parents go on to have other children "normally", why would you believe such an improbable story about one kid's birth involving angels, dreams, visions, and biological impossibilities?  It's much easier to believe that Joseph and Mary got a little too impatient waiting for marriage, made a mistake, kept things under wraps, and by the time the child was born, they were already out of town, living in a foreign country for some years, etc...enough time for gossip to die down and to return to a normal life.  In other words, ____ happens.  Hardly a miracle. 

I'm just not convinced that Matthew means to say what you think he is saying.  It doesn't "add" anything positive, it just makes everything else look weaker.       

Quote
2) Read again, I was talking in the context that "It would not matter if Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Christ".   They were married after all, thus physical relations are completely sinless.  This would not taint the virgin birth at all. 

Well, I know people who've been raped by their spouses.  That's an extreme case, but clearly it's not the case that marriage alone makes physical relations between spouses "completely sinless". 

Would it taint the Virgin Birth?  Yes.  Not because sex between spouses is sinful.  But because it casts doubt on the entire idea.  It's easier to believe that Joseph and Mary "had Jesus the regular way" and later on God came and "adopted" their kid than it is to believe the Virgin Birth.  It's not about whether or not sex is yucky, it's about whether or not this story is nonsense. 

Quote
3) I didn't answer this one & the post because I thought it was sort of jabbing at me by the final question.  I believe God the Father (YHWH/Jehovah) is the father of Yeshua (Jesus).  I believe he was both man & God.   I believe Joseph was his human parent while he was on Earth, as was Mary.

I'm sorry.  It wasn't my intent to insult or offend you, I just felt like it was an important question that I asked before and either you missed it or were ignoring it. 

Anyway, I don't understand your reply.  If you believe that "Joseph was his human parent while he was on Earth, as was Mary", is that to say that Joseph was Jesus' biological parent?  Because Mary was certainly his biological parent. 

If you believe, on the other hand, that God is the father of Jesus, and Mary is his mother, and Joseph is sort of a "foster father" or "legal father" or "guardian" or whatever the proper term is, then why do you believe that?  If Joseph and Mary were perfectly capable of having other children, and if that's what you think Matthew's implying, why believe that Jesus wasn't conceived normally?   

In reply to number 1, the only conclusion I can come up with as to why Matthew included that Joseph knew Mary is because they very well could have had other children.  Often considered by many scholars, that Jesus had brothers.

Matthew very well could have included that to let people know that Jesus was from a virgin birth, yet his brothers were not.

But this is assumption, based on biblical scholar commentary.


In reply to number 2, I don't think it would taint the virgin birth at all, and yes, the rape thing was extreme.   Since Christ was born of a virgin, he will always be from a virgin birth (never happening before).   Thus, what Mary & Joseph engaging in physical relation would not be tainted imho.  In fact its almost stranger to think they were married and never had physical relations.


In reply to number 3, Yes, I believe that Jesus was conceived miraculously between God and the virgin Mary.   Joseph was the Parent/Guardian figure in the family.   God encouraged his marriage to Mary, and Mary was Joseph's wife.   Matthew states "Joseph didn't know her until after the birth", sealing the virgin birth of Christ.


It was his WIFE, and he her HUSBAND.  Saying "ever virgin" is okay, as the only woman to give birth as a virgin.  But to assume she and Joseph never had a physical relationship, especially based on Matthews testimony, and the testimony of brothers - to cast that off... I just can't do it.   In fact, I would find it more beautiful if they did have a physical relationship.  Doesn't maker her stained, tainted, or dirty at all.  Joseph was her head, and she submitted to Joseph.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #147 on: June 15, 2013, 10:42:17 PM »

  If one miracle is impossible, why would any other be possible?     

THIS!!

You mean like Joseph and Mary engaging in a physical relationship after the birth of Christ and her STILL being a virgin? 
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #148 on: June 15, 2013, 10:46:15 PM »

Sure, but they don't teach that Joseph and Mary went on to have other children.  If you interpret Mt. 1.25 to mean that they definitely did have children afterwards in the normal manner, then the issue is not about whether or not it was a sinful thing for two married people to do; the issue is that there's no reason to believe that this "Virgin Birth" was anything of the sort.  Sure, the Gospels may say that, but so what?  It's in the interest of a religion to protect its founder from any hint of scandal.  All the better if they actually buy it.   

Among other things, the ever-virginity of Our Lady is the assurance that Jesus' Father is who we and the Gospels say he is.  You start messing around with that, and you raise the possibility that there was, in fact, messing around.  If one miracle is impossible, why would any other be possible?     

The truth is even her parents and husband were not sure what to think, but this is the way of God in all whom he requested specific acts.

i have had dreams that have shown me future events, but me trying to prove that to you or anyone else is utterly impossible. Because they were never clear until I saw them happen years later.

In the case of Mary she was already pregnant by the time she could tell anyone, so how could they know for sure.

My response to what I think is being discussed here about her having other children is that she may have, that does not change her status as a virgin when she was visited by an angel. I do not think you can accurately say from the Gospels she never had other children with Joseph afterward, and I do not see that changes the story of Immaculate conception.

It seems to me that the church has always been hurt by trying to micromanage all these fine details that gets it in trouble, I see those definitions as wrong, because they are trying to use the Gospels to say what it was not meant to say.This issue did not become church doctrine until after the second century. So just as other things it wants to define through the Bible, are not always as they were meant by the writers of the Gospels who had access to people who were there.

Mary was in contact with the people whom were spreading the Gospel in the beginning , so she had plenty of discussions about Jesus birth and childhood , as well as the later ministry with his followers, so it is wrong that this is always treated as though they had no way of knowing these things. Of course they had to take her word, but did so on the basis of what they learned from Jesus.being who he claimed

I think you expressed my point, much more articulately than me.   I'm giving credence to the possibility, not absolute.  Also wondering why it would be so "tainted" if she had had a physical relationship with her husband AFTER the birth of Christ.

I personally do believe she did have other children, and that "mother & brothers" were used literally when Christ defined his "real mother & brothers".   Also that Matthew stated "did not know her until"... It's kind of obvious and never changes the fact that she will always be the ever virgin who gave birth to Christ.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #149 on: June 15, 2013, 11:15:14 PM »

The gospel of Matthew makes a pretty clear indication that:

Joseph did not know her till after the birth.
The word "till" translates into "until" in other parts of the scriptures.

Joseph did not know her until after the birth.

But we get told by men 553 years later that "she was forever a virgin and never engaged in physical relation with St. Joseph".

Funniest thing about this argument is that truly it would NOT MATTER.  If you think about it, a woman is pure if she is with her husband.  So Mary & Joseph would be pure in a physical relationship bound in matrimony that GOD promoted.

YIM (unless I'm mistaken, this seems to be the commonly used abbreviation of your name), ...

3)  I asked a question earlier directed to you, but perhaps you didn't see it because I didn't specifically address you.  Now I do: Who is the father of Jesus?         

This is a crucial question. There are some protestants who believe that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus and that Christ became God with His baptism. Now isn't that what Arianism preaches, that there was a time when Jesus was not God?

I think that confuses Arianism with Adoptionism. Arius' little ditty, IIRC, referred to the Son's non-existence, in that he was not co-eternal with the Father. Adoptionism is a different heresy.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #150 on: June 15, 2013, 11:16:08 PM »

The gospel of Matthew makes a pretty clear indication that:

Joseph did not know her till after the birth.
The word "till" translates into "until" in other parts of the scriptures.

Joseph did not know her until after the birth.

But we get told by men 553 years later that "she was forever a virgin and never engaged in physical relation with St. Joseph".

Funniest thing about this argument is that truly it would NOT MATTER.  If you think about it, a woman is pure if she is with her husband.  So Mary & Joseph would be pure in a physical relationship bound in matrimony that GOD promoted.

YIM (unless I'm mistaken, this seems to be the commonly used abbreviation of your name), ...

3)  I asked a question earlier directed to you, but perhaps you didn't see it because I didn't specifically address you.  Now I do: Who is the father of Jesus?        

This is a crucial question. There are some protestants who believe that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus and that Christ became God with His baptism. Now isn't that what Arianism preaches, that there was a time when Jesus was not God?

Arianism taught that God the Son was created (that there was a time when the Son was not) not that there was a time when Christ was not the Son of God. The latter belief is Adoptionism and often the idea is that He was adopted as God's Son at His baptism rather than being the Word incarnate. In Arianism, Christ was still the Word incarnate it's just that the Word was a lesser, created god, not eternally begotten of the Father.

James

Sorry, missed this.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #151 on: June 15, 2013, 11:18:58 PM »

Sure, but they don't teach that Joseph and Mary went on to have other children.  If you interpret Mt. 1.25 to mean that they definitely did have children afterwards in the normal manner, then the issue is not about whether or not it was a sinful thing for two married people to do; the issue is that there's no reason to believe that this "Virgin Birth" was anything of the sort.  Sure, the Gospels may say that, but so what?  It's in the interest of a religion to protect its founder from any hint of scandal.  All the better if they actually buy it.   

Among other things, the ever-virginity of Our Lady is the assurance that Jesus' Father is who we and the Gospels say he is.  You start messing around with that, and you raise the possibility that there was, in fact, messing around.  If one miracle is impossible, why would any other be possible?     

The truth is even her parents and husband were not sure what to think, but this is the way of God in all whom he requested specific acts.

i have had dreams that have shown me future events, but me trying to prove that to you or anyone else is utterly impossible. Because they were never clear until I saw them happen years later.

In the case of Mary she was already pregnant by the time she could tell anyone, so how could they know for sure.

My response to what I think is being discussed here about her having other children is that she may have, that does not change her status as a virgin when she was visited by an angel. I do not think you can accurately say from the Gospels she never had other children with Joseph afterward, and I do not see that changes the story of Immaculate conception.

It seems to me that the church has always been hurt by trying to micromanage all these fine details that gets it in trouble, I see those definitions as wrong, because they are trying to use the Gospels to say what it was not meant to say.This issue did not become church doctrine until after the second century. So just as other things it wants to define through the Bible, are not always as they were meant by the writers of the Gospels who had access to people who were there.

Mary was in contact with the people whom were spreading the Gospel in the beginning , so she had plenty of discussions about Jesus birth and childhood , as well as the later ministry with his followers, so it is wrong that this is always treated as though they had no way of knowing these things. Of course they had to take her word, but did so on the basis of what they learned from Jesus.being who he claimed

I think you expressed my point, much more articulately than me.   I'm giving credence to the possibility, not absolute.  Also wondering why it would be so "tainted" if she had had a physical relationship with her husband AFTER the birth of Christ.

I personally do believe she did have other children, and that "mother & brothers" were used literally when Christ defined his "real mother & brothers".   Also that Matthew stated "did not know her until"... It's kind of obvious and never changes the fact that she will always be the ever virgin who gave birth to Christ.

Seems like you're trying to bend things to fit your own problems.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #152 on: June 15, 2013, 11:25:33 PM »

The truth is even her parents and husband were not sure what to think, but this is the way of God in all whom he requested specific acts.

...

In the case of Mary she was already pregnant by the time she could tell anyone, so how could they know for sure.

The Gospels don't say anything about Mary's parents, and they present Joseph as not knowing what to think about Mary's situation.  But, if we're going to admit the possibility that Joseph and Mary had other children of their own after Jesus, all that could just be dismissed as an elaborate cover-up for the fact that Jesus was conceived by a couple eager to "get it on" before actually cohabiting as a married couple.  I mean, really, what's simpler to believe?    

Quote
My response to what I think is being discussed here about her having other children is that she may have, that does not change her status as a virgin when she was visited by an angel. I do not think you can accurately say from the Gospels she never had other children with Joseph afterward, and I do not see that changes the story of Immaculate conception.

If she had other children after Jesus, you're right, that wouldn't necessarily change the fact that she was a virgin when she bore Jesus.  The problem is that there's no reason to believe such a story about Jesus.  

On the other hand, if you're going to believe a virgin sees an angel, is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (AFAIK, a previously unknown or at least obscure concept in Judaism compared to how we understand him), and gives birth to a baby boy nine months later without any male intervention, and you're going to believe that because Matthew and Luke told you so and because you believe Jesus is special, why is it so hard to believe that a married couple may have remained celibate within their marriage?  The latter is not nearly as miraculous as the former.  

And the Immaculate Conception has to do with Mary's conception in the womb of her mother, not Jesus' conception in the womb of his mother.    

Quote
It seems to me that the church has always been hurt by trying to micromanage all these fine details that gets it in trouble, I see those definitions as wrong, because they are trying to use the Gospels to say what it was not meant to say.This issue did not become church doctrine until after the second century. So just as other things it wants to define through the Bible, are not always as they were meant by the writers of the Gospels who had access to people who were there.

Or it could be that people pry into all these fine details and start messing things up, and the Church has to come in and "micromanage" in order to prevent people from adulterating the gospel.  Honestly, I don't think anyone in the Church was interested in discussing a particular gynecological case study until it was sufficiently called into doubt (meaning that this doubt went further than Mary, and touched on the person of Christ, as everything about Mary does); and at that point, you might have to discuss some delicate matters in order to get the important stuff right.  But I don't think the Church sat there one day and decided to talk about anatomy because it was bored and wanted to jazz things up a bit.  I think people started speculating on those things, whether people in the Church or heretics outside the Church who then wield an influence on those within, and then the Church has to respond to protect the faith and the faithful.  At least that's how I read two thousand years' worth of Church history.  

Quote
Mary was in contact with the people whom were spreading the Gospel in the beginning , so she had plenty of discussions about Jesus birth and childhood , as well as the later ministry with his followers, so it is wrong that this is always treated as though they had no way of knowing these things. Of course they had to take her word, but did so on the basis of what they learned from Jesus.being who he claimed

Sure, I agree that Mary (and, with her and after her, Jesus' extended family) was a prime source for a lot of what we read in the infancy narratives.  I just think that it's not impossible that details about Mary's virginity may have been discussed after she died rather than in her lifetime, out of sensitivity for the subject.  At least, this is how Benedict XVI seems to argue in the third volume of his series Jesus of Nazareth.  And if she herself discussed it, that's her prerogative.  

You claim that you can't accurately claim from the Gospels that Mary had no children after Jesus.  But the only evidence brought forth by those who support the idea that she had other children is Mt. 1.25 (which others here have discussed in terms of the semantic range of the word "until" in the Scriptures) and those passages referring to brothers and sisters (which  term also has a range of meaning not just in language but in that culture and those like it).  And never mind that they would only be Jesus' real brothers and sisters if either a) they were also conceived by the Holy Spirit or b) if Jesus was conceived with the seed of Joseph.  Have fun with that.  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #153 on: June 15, 2013, 11:31:59 PM »

Also that Matthew stated "did not know her until"... It's kind of obvious and never changes the fact that she will always be the ever virgin who gave birth to Christ.

LOL.  It's obvious to you and to some types of Protestant who don't typically have anything nice to say about Jesus' mother.  It's not at all obvious to the Catholics, Orthodox, other types of Protestant, and maybe even Muslims (open to correction on this). 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #154 on: June 16, 2013, 09:37:47 AM »

One does not drink beer from a liturgical chalice.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 1,641


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #155 on: June 16, 2013, 06:57:27 PM »

If Mary was Joseph's wife, it would be necessary to consummate it and there would be no union without it, why would God require this and if it were then that would have been part of what God told Mary and Joseph, and would have been part of the narrative.

Just as the story of John the Baptist father was told to name him John and was made Mute during the pregnancy .

 Mary's virgin status after the birth of Christ was never mentioned by the Gospels , so where does it come from.

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.“
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,326



« Reply #156 on: June 16, 2013, 08:41:29 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #157 on: June 16, 2013, 09:30:46 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.

Can you imagine what it's like for Jesus?  I mean, I don't think I could handle hearing about such things with regard to my mother.  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,326



« Reply #158 on: June 16, 2013, 09:37:42 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.

Can you imagine what it's like for Jesus?  I mean, I don't think I could handle hearing about such things with regard to my mother.  Smiley

He's probably thinking:  For Pete's sake, I went down there, died for them, my Mom was put through excruciating agony having to watch and all they want to talk about is if she and Joseph got jiggy wit it!
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #159 on: June 16, 2013, 09:43:15 PM »

If Mary was Joseph's wife, it would be necessary to consummate it and there would be no union without it, why would God require this and if it were then that would have been part of what God told Mary and Joseph, and would have been part of the narrative.

Would it "have to be" part of what God told Mary and Joseph?  Really?  Is God obliged to follow our script?    

In the third volume of his series Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI examines the question of Our Lady to the archangel Gabriel "How can this be, since I do not know man?"  If she was betrothed to Joseph, and the angel announced to her the birth of a son, why would she ask such a dumb question?  Mary should know exactly how that baby would come into the world; within a year, she'd move in with Joseph as his wife, and sooner or later, she'd become pregnant, having consummated the marriage.  Yet, her question to Gabriel presumes that, for her, normal sexual relations are out of the question.  Benedict explores some common explanations (e.g., she took a vow of virginity), and shoots them all down as unsatisfactory or insufficient.  In the end, his conclusion is that we can't really know why she asked that question, we can't really know why she felt that sex was out of the question for her, and yet, it's right there in her question.  He argues that matters like this were most likely traditions preserved in the extended family of Jesus and Mary that weren't spoken about outside the family until after her Dormition out of respect for Our Lady.      

Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #160 on: June 16, 2013, 09:53:39 PM »

Also that Matthew stated "did not know her until"... It's kind of obvious and never changes the fact that she will always be the ever virgin who gave birth to Christ.

LOL.  It's obvious to you and to some types of Protestant who don't typically have anything nice to say about Jesus' mother.  It's not at all obvious to the Catholics, Orthodox, other types of Protestant, and maybe even Muslims (open to correction on this). 

What did I say bad about Mary?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #161 on: June 16, 2013, 09:55:24 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.

Can you imagine what it's like for Jesus?  I mean, I don't think I could handle hearing about such things with regard to my mother.  Smiley

Yeah, but more to the point, could you imagine people calling your guardian/adoptive Father a celibate?   Nobody ever considers  Joseph.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #162 on: June 16, 2013, 09:56:00 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.

Can you imagine what it's like for Jesus?  I mean, I don't think I could handle hearing about such things with regard to my mother.  Smiley

He's probably thinking:  For Pete's sake, I went down there, died for them, my Mom was put through excruciating agony having to watch and all they want to talk about is if she and Joseph got jiggy wit it!


^See, and I was accused of saying bad things about Mary.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,326



« Reply #163 on: June 16, 2013, 09:57:46 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.

Can you imagine what it's like for Jesus?  I mean, I don't think I could handle hearing about such things with regard to my mother.  Smiley

Yeah, but more to the point, could you imagine people calling your guardian/adoptive Father a celibate?   Nobody ever considers  Joseph.
If I had an adoptive Father and he was celibate, and people mentioned it, I don't think that would bother me at all.  There have been bishops that have adopted children if I recall correctly.  Much less offensive than discussing your mom's sex life.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #164 on: June 16, 2013, 10:25:28 PM »

What did I say bad about Mary?

I didn't mean to imply that you said anything bad about Mary: "who don't typically have anything nice to say about Jesus' mother" is supposed to modify "some types of Protestant".  I wasn't lumping you in with them...sorry for the confusion!   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #165 on: June 16, 2013, 10:29:28 PM »

Yeah, but more to the point, could you imagine people calling your guardian/adoptive Father a celibate?   Nobody ever considers  Joseph.

If he's not my biological father, but only my guardian/foster father/adoptive father, what do I care if people call him celibate?  This presumes that calling someone a celibate is an insult.  Is it somehow bad, inappropriate, shameful, etc. for a man to remain sexually inactive? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
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: 1,641


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #166 on: June 17, 2013, 09:25:13 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.


I agree, but am amazed at the degree of others hatred of those religions who venerate her. I am questioning only with love towards our Lord Jesus and his Mother.

 But recently I was told by a friend from another denomination that it is wrong to worship Mary as the orthodox and Catholic churches do, I was taken by surprise as I never heard such intense emotion of that issue, or at all was I aware of the whole issue of discord on the subject. But I defended my faith and still do.
 However I am always willing to listen to all sides, and still will never dismiss my friends from
other faiths commitment to our lord Jesus.

My personal take is that it is not all that Important, as the issue is not about Faith, but what we are doing with it.  I believe Jesus was correct when he said there is none good but God.
And when Jesus prayed it seemed it was always to his Father God, and not to other prophets or angels or saints. I believe also that we are justified in venerating her, but will not allow myself to look down on others who do not believe in doing that as we Orthodox do.

It is a matter of loving all Christians, and to me I believe that Jesus said that was most Important next to loving God.
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.“
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #167 on: June 17, 2013, 09:34:17 PM »

Yeah, but more to the point, could you imagine people calling your guardian/adoptive Father a celibate?   Nobody ever considers  Joseph.

If he's not my biological father, but only my guardian/foster father/adoptive father, what do I care if people call him celibate?  This presumes that calling someone a celibate is an insult.  Is it somehow bad, inappropriate, shameful, etc. for a man to remain sexually inactive? 

If you don't get it, don't worry about it.   Male role model figure, celibate.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,157


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #168 on: June 17, 2013, 09:38:46 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.

Can you imagine what it's like for Jesus?  I mean, I don't think I could handle hearing about such things with regard to my mother.  Smiley

Yeah, but more to the point, could you imagine people calling your guardian/adoptive Father a celibate?   Nobody ever considers  Joseph.
If I had an adoptive Father and he was celibate, and people mentioned it, I don't think that would bother me at all.  There have been bishops that have adopted children if I recall correctly.  Much less offensive than discussing your mom's sex life.

If there are "modern" bishops that adopted, they didn't have wives.

But this is not the point, a married man being called celibate to his wife is insulting.


My point was in response to what somebody said.

Look, its not all about Mary, Joseph was his male role model.... To call Mary "ever virgin" is the same as calling Joseph a celibate. 

Blah, this is ridiculous.  Like it or not the scriptures CLEARLY state Joseph did not know her until AFTER the birth.  This is plain, simple, and direct.  Like it or not, EO church tradition once again has scrambled the scriptures.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #169 on: June 17, 2013, 10:10:06 PM »

I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.

Can you imagine what it's like for Jesus?  I mean, I don't think I could handle hearing about such things with regard to my mother.  Smiley

Yeah, but more to the point, could you imagine people calling your guardian/adoptive Father a celibate?   Nobody ever considers  Joseph.
If I had an adoptive Father and he was celibate, and people mentioned it, I don't think that would bother me at all.  There have been bishops that have adopted children if I recall correctly.  Much less offensive than discussing your mom's sex life.

If there are "modern" bishops that adopted, they didn't have wives.

But this is not the point, a married man being called celibate to his wife is insulting.


My point was in response to what somebody said.

Look, its not all about Mary, Joseph was his male role model.... To call Mary "ever virgin" is the same as calling Joseph a celibate. 

Blah, this is ridiculous.  Like it or not the scriptures CLEARLY state Joseph did not know her until AFTER the birth.  This is plain, simple, and direct.  Like it or not, EO church tradition once again has scrambled the scriptures.

It doesn't say until after, but until. As in, "Lo, I am with you always until the end of the age, after which, you all are on your own."
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,326



« Reply #170 on: June 18, 2013, 12:08:52 AM »

YiM, you are alway big on going back to see what the early church taught, where is there ever a teaching that Mary had other children?  Other than that oblique reference on until, that vast majority of sources hold that Mary was a perpetual virgin.  As early as the 200s AD, we can see consistent teaching on the perpetual virginity.  Do you think those Fathers were not familiar with Scripture?  Do you think people missed it for 1900 years?  It has only been in the last 100-200 years that people have attempted to connect the siblings referenced as Mary's children.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 12:14:50 AM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,158


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #171 on: June 18, 2013, 02:04:36 AM »

Look, its not all about Mary, Joseph was his male role model.... To call Mary "ever virgin" is the same as calling Joseph a celibate. 

Blah, this is ridiculous. 

Finally, something we can agree on.  This is ridiculous. 

Sure, Joseph served as a male role model for Christ.  Does that mean that the only way Joseph could be a good male role model for Jesus was by making sure Jesus knew he has having sex with Mary?  Was that the way Joseph needed to teach Jesus about being a man?  Is having sex all there is to being a man? 

I never saw my father have sex.  Did I miss out on something?  Frankly, I'm glad I missed out on that.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #172 on: June 18, 2013, 04:38:57 AM »

Jesus clearly knew Joseph wasn't His biological father.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
********