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?
Did people touch God, even without His consent or knowing who had?
Do people take the flesh and blood and of God into their mouths?
But, for some reason Joseph couldn't have had sex with Mary because God "had been there"?
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.