OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 02:57:33 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 3525 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,554


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #180 on: June 19, 2013, 07:53:46 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.

For the full context of what I have written above, you'll find the answer in the document on the place and iconography of St Joseph the Betrothed I have freely, and repeatedly, offered here. But, yet again, you reject what I have had to say, yet you refuse to inform yourself properly.

What holds you back?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,488



« Reply #181 on: June 19, 2013, 08:03:47 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.

For the full context of what I have written above, you'll find the answer in the document on the place and iconography of St Joseph the Betrothed I have freely, and repeatedly, offered here. But, yet again, you reject what I have had to say, yet you refuse to inform yourself properly.

What holds you back?

The fact I know your orientation better than you and find it on the whole to be incredibly shallow. If I want an icon encyclopedist, I know where to go. If I what to know about what an icon is, I know where not to.

When are you going to respond to my substantial questions to you about your method?

Probably never.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 08:04:13 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,481



« Reply #182 on: June 20, 2013, 01:14:07 AM »

You're quite the font of misinformation, aren't you?
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.
And?
Abp. John of Chicago/Metropolitan of Riga and All Latvia adopted Fr. Sergei, the once and present guardian of the Tikhvin Mother of God (once his beloved wife went to her reward).  Neither Fr. Sergei, his Matushka nor their children had anything but kind words on Abp. John.   St. Innocent, Abp. of the Aleutians and Met. of Moscow had a wife and children.

But this is not the point, a married man being called celibate to his wife is insulting.

Most prefer to think of their father being celibate but married to their mother, and are insulted by people insisting on getting into details otherwise. But you go ahead and fantasize about your parents' intimate relationships.

My point was in response to what somebody said.
Yes, St. Matthew.

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.
Since he had been married and had half a dozen children, no, it is not.

Blah, this is ridiculous.


Like it or not the scriptures CLEARLY state Joseph did not know her until AFTER the birth.
Like it or not our Scriptures CLEARLY state Joseph did NOT know her until the birth.

This is plain, simple, and direct.
That is plainly and simply your interpolation of your ravings into the text:
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱόν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον
And not he knew her until that she born the son her the first-born

No μετὰ "after" there.  Except in your misguided and willful imagination.

It does occur in Matthew though:
Μετὰ δὲ τὴν μετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος Ἰεχονίας ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σαλαθιήλ...Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἕως Δαυῒδ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ Δαυῒδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες.
And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel...So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Your analysis suffers from problems of temporal limits and basic counting-from Abraham until David 14 generations are listed, not AFTER David; 14 generations from David until the Babylonian captivity, not AFTER; 14 generations from the Captivity to St. Joseph, not AFTER. St. Matthew doesn't count past David, the Captivity or St. Joseph to get to 14. But please, feel free to lose count.

οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπορεύθησαν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀστὴρ ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ προῆγεν αὐτοὺς ἕως ἐλθὼν ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον·
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was

Did the Star of Bethlehem keep on going once it reached its destination?  Sort of defeats the purpose according to St. Matthew.  But please, feel free to wander off.  Or rather, continue on your way.

Like it or not, EO church tradition once again has scrambled the scriptures.
We like it, and you evidently do not, that EO Church Tradition once again knows our own Scriptures, and you again demonstrate that you haven't a clue.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 01:15:00 AM by ialmisry » 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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,554


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #183 on: June 20, 2013, 01:48:04 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.


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.

For the full context of what I have written above, you'll find the answer in the document on the place and iconography of St Joseph the Betrothed I have freely, and repeatedly, offered here. But, yet again, you reject what I have had to say, yet you refuse to inform yourself properly.

What holds you back?

The fact I know your orientation better than you and find it on the whole to be incredibly shallow. If I want an icon encyclopedist, I know where to go. If I what to know about what an icon is, I know where not to.

When are you going to respond to my substantial questions to you about your method?

Probably never.

Your lack of objectivity is not surprising. Your presumption about "knowing my orientation" is immense.

If you want to know more about my "method", i.e. how I have arrived at the findings and conclusions on the iconography and place of St Joseph the Betrothed in Orthodoxy, the answer is simple: PM me and provide an email address so I can send you the PDF.

Is that really so difficult?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,481



« Reply #184 on: June 20, 2013, 02:18:09 AM »

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.
I missed this before, but I'm going to bed now.  If I remember I'll come back to it, but for now: the issue over orphans in the Quran stems largely from the customs of pagan Arabia, where a living male link was needed to mean anything in the context of the extended family.  In the case of Muhammad, for instance, since his father died before he was born, there was no real inheritance for him, as the family wealth of the Quraysh would not come to him, but remain in the hands of his living grandfather, uncles, and male cousins.  Nursing a child, however, established a foster relationship.  Pagan Arabia did have adoption in the sense we know it, but Muhammad abolished it.  If no relation took the orphan in, he became a ward of the sheikh.  That lasted only until puberty, at which case the orphan could handle his affairs, but did not have the backing of a family that tribal tradition maintained between adult sons and their fathers.

For a little bit of background:
http://books.google.com/books?id=wpM3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1161&dq=Yatim+Encyclopedia+Islam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y5_CUeucOfPlyAGal4CQCA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Yatim%20Encyclopedia%20Islam&f=false
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
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 762



« Reply #185 on: June 20, 2013, 06:23:15 AM »

Moderator: Is there some forum rule which prohibits people putting "Orthodox" for their faith when they are demonstrably not Orthodox?  

I'm not against other viewpoints, but I just find it dishonest (if not an outright lie) for the OP to claim Orthodoxy as one of his/her faiths.  It can be misleading for new enquirers.  
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 06:33:47 AM by john_mo » Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #186 on: June 20, 2013, 06:50:09 AM »

The meaning of "until" is ambiguous: it can mean "until but not after" or "until and also after". So it is not possible to argue that we must interpret the passage to mean "until but not after" by a strict literal reading. That interpretation is only valid if we have good reason from the context of the narrative that Matthew meant "she remained a virgin until she gave birth (and afterwards had sex with Joseph)", as opposed to "she remained a virgin until she gave birth (and continued to be a virgin afterwards)".

Since the literal meaning is ambiguous, we have to determine the context in which the passage must be understood. The Orthodox position is that the context is Tradition. A secular historian may object that traditions may change, i.e. the context at the time of Matthew may have been different from the context of later Church Fathers. In that case, the historian should look for evidence that the common interpretation of this passage in the earliest period of Christianity was "until but not after", i.e. that the Theotokos was not ever-virgin. The debate between St Jerome and Helvidius certainly shows that such an interpretation did exist among some people by the 4th century, but is there any reason to suppose this was the original interpretation, and that the Orthodox one was secondary?
Logged
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 762



« Reply #187 on: June 20, 2013, 07:43:22 AM »

The meaning of "until" is ambiguous: it can mean "until but not after" or "until and also after". So it is not possible to argue that we must interpret the passage to mean "until but not after" by a strict literal reading. That interpretation is only valid if we have good reason from the context of the narrative that Matthew meant "she remained a virgin until she gave birth (and afterwards had sex with Joseph)", as opposed to "she remained a virgin until she gave birth (and continued to be a virgin afterwards)".

Since the literal meaning is ambiguous, we have to determine the context in which the passage must be understood. The Orthodox position is that the context is Tradition. A secular historian may object that traditions may change, i.e. the context at the time of Matthew may have been different from the context of later Church Fathers. In that case, the historian should look for evidence that the common interpretation of this passage in the earliest period of Christianity was "until but not after", i.e. that the Theotokos was not ever-virgin. The debate between St Jerome and Helvidius certainly shows that such an interpretation did exist among some people by the 4th century, but is there any reason to suppose this was the original interpretation, and that the Orthodox one was secondary?

Indeed.  There are many verses in the Bible where "until" does not carry the same implication as in English. 

Consider the following passages: And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto (eos) this day (Dt 34.6). Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (eos) the day of her death (2Sam 6.23). In his days may the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace till (eos) the moon is no more (Ps 72.7). The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until (eos) I make thine enemies thy footstool (Ps 110.1). His heart is established, he shall not be afraid, until (eos) he see his desire upon his enemies (Ps 112.Cool. So our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until (eos) that he have mercy upon us (Ps 123.2). "...if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until (eos) this day" (Mt 11.23). "...and, lo, I am with you always, even unto (eos) the end of the world" (Mt 28.20). But Philip...preached in all the cities, till (eos) he came to Caesarea. (Acts 8.40) Till (eos) I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine (1Tim 4.13). We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until (eos) the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts (2pet 1.19) It is not necessary that “until” in any of these verses is intended to indicate a reversal. Nor, according to the Church, is this the intent of Matthew 1.25.  Taken from http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/792/
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #188 on: June 20, 2013, 10:10:54 AM »

Moderator: Is there some forum rule which prohibits people putting "Orthodox" for their faith when they are demonstrably not Orthodox? 

I'm not against other viewpoints, but I just find it dishonest (if not an outright lie) for the OP to claim Orthodoxy as one of his/her faiths.  It can be misleading for new enquirers.   

He does not claim he is Orthodox. He claims he made his own jigsaw religion instead.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 762



« Reply #189 on: June 20, 2013, 01:08:14 PM »

Moderator: Is there some forum rule which prohibits people putting "Orthodox" for their faith when they are demonstrably not Orthodox? 

I'm not against other viewpoints, but I just find it dishonest (if not an outright lie) for the OP to claim Orthodoxy as one of his/her faiths.  It can be misleading for new enquirers.   

He does not claim he is Orthodox. He claims he made his own jigsaw religion instead.

I understand, although I would argue that you can only be Orthodox and nothing else.  This is in contrast to the Protestant traditions where one can be made up of an patchwork of beliefs.  With the OP he/she states Orthodox (among other things) as their "faith" which makes it seem as though they are a part of the Church.  If the category was "Beliefs" instead of "Faith", then I would agree with you.
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
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 0.083 seconds with 37 queries.