OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 11:11:59 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 3998 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


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
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,551


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

AFAIK Arianism preached Jesus was no God at all.
Logged
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
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,644


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


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: 4,522


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
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
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: 1,887


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
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,644


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: 1,887


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: 4,522


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: 4,522


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: 4,522


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: 7,975


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: 7,975


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: 7,975


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
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,551


« Reply #154 on: June 16, 2013, 09:37:47 AM »

One does not drink beer from a liturgical chalice.
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: 1,887


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,522


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: 4,522


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: 4,522


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
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: 1,887


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: 4,522


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: 4,522


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: 7,975


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,973



« 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

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Mor Ephrem
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,551


« Reply #172 on: June 18, 2013, 04:38:57 AM »

Jesus clearly knew Joseph wasn't His biological father.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 6,011


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #173 on: June 18, 2013, 05:27:12 PM »

On a somewhat related note, am I the only one who would find it incredibly weird and unnerving to have sex with the woman who gave birth to God Himself? And not only that, but in the very same household that God incarnate lived in? Admittedly, idk if St. Joseph knew truly how special Christ was, but he appears to have at least known that He was special to some extent, due to the virgin birth.
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.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #174 on: June 18, 2013, 06:02:22 PM »

On a somewhat related note, am I the only one who would find it incredibly weird and unnerving to have sex with the woman who gave birth to God Himself? And not only that, but in the very same household that God incarnate lived in? Admittedly, idk if St. Joseph knew truly how special Christ was, but he appears to have at least known that He was special to some extent, due to the virgin birth.

It would take some gall. And Joseph was neither Gall nor Comgall.
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
NO TENURE FOR DEPONIO!!
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,765


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #175 on: June 18, 2013, 09:54:43 PM »

On a somewhat related note, am I the only one who would find it incredibly weird and unnerving to have sex with the woman who gave birth to God Himself? And not only that, but in the very same household that God incarnate lived in? Admittedly, idk if St. Joseph knew truly how special Christ was, but he appears to have at least known that He was special to some extent, due to the virgin birth.

You need not even imagine that far.  Imagine helping the One who created feet learn how to walk.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,539



« Reply #176 on: June 18, 2013, 10:47:59 PM »

On a somewhat related note, am I the only one who would find it incredibly weird and unnerving to have sex with the woman who gave birth to God Himself? And not only that, but in the very same household that God incarnate lived in? Admittedly, idk if St. Joseph knew truly how special Christ was, but he appears to have at least known that He was special to some extent, due to the virgin birth.
JamesR, when you get something right, you really get it right! (obviously you're not the "only one"  Wink)
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,644


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #177 on: June 19, 2013, 12:36:45 AM »

On a somewhat related note, am I the only one who would find it incredibly weird and unnerving to have sex with the woman who gave birth to God Himself? And not only that, but in the very same household that God incarnate lived in? Admittedly, idk if St. Joseph knew truly how special Christ was, but he appears to have at least known that He was special to some extent, due to the virgin birth.
JamesR, when you get something right, you really get it right! (obviously you're not the "only one"  Wink)

From post #4:

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.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,667


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #178 on: June 19, 2013, 10:04:54 AM »

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.
Go read about "eos" and come back to us. Like it or not, you dont know what you're talking about....again.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #179 on: June 19, 2013, 01:03:41 PM »

On a somewhat related note, am I the only one who would find it incredibly weird and unnerving to have sex with the woman who gave birth to God Himself? And not only that, but in the very same household that God incarnate lived in? Admittedly, idk if St. Joseph knew truly how special Christ was, but he appears to have at least known that He was special to some extent, due to the virgin birth.
JamesR, when you get something right, you really get it right! (obviously you're not the "only one"  Wink)

From post #4:

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.


A spurious argument to be sure.

No need to invent legends and some "logical" argument when Scripture is clear on the matter.

So you can't have sex with a woman who gave birth to God, but you can take God into your mouth?

So Joseph would have had a hard time being in Mary's presence but yet raised God and traveled with her and the like? I know LBK you don't think Joseph held his own son or something, but really, none of this makes sense.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 01:04:06 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.183 seconds with 72 queries.