OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 08:32:52 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 3413 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



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

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

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

Posts: 172



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

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



No, not me, I wouldn't know.

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



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

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



No, not me, I wouldn't know.

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

But not beyond the means of a human either.

Sorry for the mixup.
Logged

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

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


Paint It Red


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

A bit overstated, particularly as there was (to judge from your posts) love making before and after deployment.  Conversely, divorce records would show that even sex had stopped for some time along the way to dissolution of marriage.
I was just reading the other day that when oxytocin is released from an orgasm it actually bonds both people closer.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



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

A bit overstated, particularly as there was (to judge from your posts) love making before and after deployment.  Conversely, divorce records would show that even sex had stopped for some time along the way to dissolution of marriage.
I was just reading the other day that when oxytocin is released from an orgasm it actually bonds both people closer.
Yes, but then there has to be less pulling them apart.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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



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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #52 on: May 10, 2013, 09:49:20 PM »

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

till = Greek ἕως

Compare:

Matthew 5:25

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

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

Matthew 16:28

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

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

Matthew 28:20

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

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




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

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

Take the entire phrase in context.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate your sincereness.

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #59 on: May 10, 2013, 10:37:59 PM »

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

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

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

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

I appreciate your sincereness.

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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

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

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

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

Here's one I quickly found:

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Posts: 559



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

IN ANSWER TO THE OP

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

It is entitled:

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

by Haris Skarlakidis (Caralambos K. Skarlakidis)

Published in Athens 2011 by the author

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

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

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

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

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

Here's one I quickly found:

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

That's what I mean.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



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

Christ is risen!
The issue exists in "and he knew her not till" the entire phrase.

till = Greek ἕως

Compare:

Matthew 5:25

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

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

Matthew 16:28

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

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

Matthew 28:20

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

Your just reinforcing yourself.

Bon apetite!
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

IN ANSWER TO THE OP

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

It is entitled:

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

by Haris Skarlakidis (Caralambos K. Skarlakidis)

Published in Athens 2011 by the author

ISBN 978-960-99255-4-9


THANK YOU.

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

Christ is risen!
The issue exists in "and he knew her not till" the entire phrase.

till = Greek ἕως

Compare:

Matthew 5:25

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

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

Matthew 16:28

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

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

Matthew 28:20

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

Your just reinforcing yourself.

Bon apetite!

A real life Ouroboros!   Wink

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

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

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

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



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

Yersualaim,

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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

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

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

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

Here's one I quickly found:

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

That's what I mean.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


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

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

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



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

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

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

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

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

Here's one I quickly found:

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

That's what I mean.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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





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

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #74 on: May 10, 2013, 11:46:19 PM »

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

till = Greek ἕως

Compare:

Matthew 5:25

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

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

Matthew 16:28

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

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

Matthew 28:20

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

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




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

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

Take the entire phrase in context.

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

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

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



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

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

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

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

This is nonsense.

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


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

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

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

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

This is nonsense.

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

Multiple levels of meaning are lost on you.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

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

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

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

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

Here's one I quickly found:

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

That's what I mean.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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

(Ezekiel 43:27-44:4)

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

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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





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

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

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

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

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

DESPITE THIS,

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

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

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

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



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

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

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

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

This is nonsense.

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

Multiple levels of meaning are lost on you.

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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


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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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





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

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

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

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

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

DESPITE THIS,

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the point?

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

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

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

till = Greek ἕως

Compare:

Matthew 5:25

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

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

Matthew 16:28

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

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

Matthew 28:20

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

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




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

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

Take the entire phrase in context.

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

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

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

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

It's just a huge assumption for NO REASON.

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



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

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

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

Sorry LBK, this will never be convincing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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


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

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

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

Ahh, you see the consistency then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,268


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


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

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

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

Sorry LBK, this will never be convincing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also in consideration, the hypothetical is too vexing.

Mary & Joseph were bound in Matrimony.

**Note** not "sexual relationS"

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

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

You may be right though, I may have deeper problems than I know.  Embarrassed
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #89 on: May 11, 2013, 01:37:03 AM »

A classic: St. Jerome - Against Helvidius.
Logged
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 0.194 seconds with 72 queries.