homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: Did Joseph "know" Mary? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: Did Joseph "know" Mary?
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
I've been re-checking the protevangelicon of James (the less?) and I don't find it, or some of the comments on it, very convincing.

What *would* you find convincing?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Janine

The Endless Simmer
# 3337

 - Posted      Profile for Janine   Email Janine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Daisymay, we told you we didn't think they were your average, run-of-the-mill couple.

Reader Alexis

Umm... because you think they were not "one flesh", they weren't?

Anything the church(es) have taught for a long time is true? How long a time is the effective amount of time it takes to set these concepts in stone?

--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *

Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Janine, it's not just a matter of having been taught a long time, although that's part of it. In the Orthodox Church, at any rate, we use a rule that was first written down by St. Vincent of Lerins to help us decide what to believe in disuputed matters.

The rule is "antiquity, universality, consensus."

Here's how it works. We believe that our Lord taught his Apostles everything they needed to know for the life of the Church, and taught them truly; and that the Holy Spirit has taught the truth from the beginning as well, and that because God loves the Church and promised to lead is into all truth, he held nothing back. (I can quote a variety of verses to this effect, but I'm sure you can look them up as well as I can.)

From that, we conclude that something that has been taught consistently from the very beginning of the life of the Church is more likely to be right than something that is new. For example, the idea of the Rapture was first contrived to explain the verses in Thessalonians some 100 or so years ago -- if it were the correct understanding of these verses, we believe that the Holy Spirit would have made this clear many, many centuries earlier. So we reject the novel interpretation and hold to the ancient one.

Next, because we believe that the Holy Spirit has come to lead every Christian without exception, and that God is no respecter of persons. Therefore, we believe that what all, or nearly all, Christians in every place and at all times is more likely to be right than something believed by a sect isolated at one place or at one time. So, for example, there are sects that believe that Jesus was crucified on a pole, not a cross. But that opinion is clearly an isolated one, and the universal opinion of the Church (clearly visible in art and architecture) is that Jesus died on a cross. So we reject the isolated opinion and hold to the universal teaching of the Church.

Finally, in cases where we can't get a clear answer from antiquity and universality (for example, you're not likely to get an answer on something like organ transplants based on antiquity and universality), we look to the consensus of the teachings of those people who are eminent for their holiness and wisdom, who have lived and died in the faith. If there is a consensus in the teachings of such people, then we are to prefer the consensus what they believed to that which is taught by people who are not as holy.

So, by the principals of antiquity, universality, and consensus, we believe that Mary was a virgin until she died. That a small number of Western Chrsitians in the last couple of hundred years thinks otherwise is hardly compelling.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
So, by the principals of antiquity, universality, and consensus, we believe that Mary was a virgin until she died. That a small number of Western Chrsitians in the last couple of hundred years thinks otherwise is hardly compelling.

What she said.

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Priest
BANNED
# 4313

 - Posted      Profile for Priest         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So does this mean that people should not read the bible in case it confuses them, better they read bible notes provided by the emminent scholars who obviously know better?
At least that way they do not need to worry about coming to the wrong conclusions.

Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
So does this mean that people should not read the bible in case it confuses them, better they read bible notes provided by the emminent scholars who obviously know better?
At least that way they do not need to worry about coming to the wrong conclusions.

Are you responding to me? If so, please read my post again. I didn't say anything about scholars in it at all, nor about Bible notes.

What I was talking about, of course, was how to figure out disputed passages -- such as the one under discussion here. St. Vincent of Lerins pointed out, there are times that it seems that there are at least as many different interpretations of the Scriptures as there are people reading it, and he set forth this rule for figuring out how to understand disputed passages.

It works for me. If you've go something better, I'm all ears.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amanuensis

Idler
# 1555

 - Posted      Profile for Amanuensis     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Well I'm sick to the teeth of this, but since you claim to be genuine here I'll answer you.

Well! There's no need to be sniffy; thank you for your answer, which was illuminating if not particularly gracious.

Josephine: I am all in favour of the principles you outline; I find they inform my opinions on quite a few matters to do with the early church.
However, I feel that the only real clincher is scriptural authority; and the Bible doesn't seem to demand that Mary remained a virgin. I guess I would remain unconvinced simply on a "balance of probabilities" basis.

--------------------
What's new?

Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Hostly Note]

There are some issues that Christians are not going to agree on. Sola Scripturists will not accept that Tradition has enough authority. Traditionalists will be flumoxed by the challenge of that authority.

It is good for us to look at each other's beliefs and thoughts. They can be strange and exotic creatures.

If people would like to talk about Tradition and Sola Scripture, take a wander over to Purg. Possibly stop by on the and visit the Virgin Mary thread over there too.

[/Hostly Note]

And now a question: Can the perpetual virginity of Mary be proved or disproved from Scripture alone?

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
And now a question: Can the perpetual virginity of Mary be proved or disproved from Scripture alone?

It can't be proven by Scripture alone, of course. Darned little can be proven by Scripture alone -- as St. Vincent pointed out so many centuries ago, we all agree on what Scripture *says*, the question is what does it *mean*.

If you wanted me to "prove" the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos from Scriptures, I could, for example, point to verses from the prophets that foretold Mary and the fact that she would remain a virgin after giving birth -- but like all prophecies, they are told in figures. If you accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, they will seem clear evidence to you; if you reject it, they won't.

Or so it seems to me.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanuensis:
Well! There's no need to be sniffy; thank you for your answer, which was illuminating if not particularly gracious.

I'm sorry it came across that way; I really wasn't meaning to say that I was sick of you; just of the whole thread which has seemed primarily to be a two-way exercise in futility. Your question was a fine one, and I apologize if I made it seem at all otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Babybear:
And now a question: Can the perpetual virginity of Mary be proved or disproved from Scripture alone?

Can ANYTHING be proved or disproved from Scripture alone? Just about anything you can possibly "prove" from Scripture, I can find a verse that says the opposite. And therein lies the rub. But we're not supposed to talk about that, apparently.

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But we're not supposed to talk about that, apparently.

Are you trying to deliberately misunderstand me, or is it just happening by luck? [Big Grin]

What I was getting at was that yourself and Josephine (along with others of a more Catholick bent) have managed to present your ideas on this issue pretty well. I was trying by my question to steer things back around to looking at Biblical texts again (this is Keryg after all!).

And emphatically we should be discussing what the texts mean, after all this is Keryg.

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anybody who believes in the Virgin Birth is trying to slice it both ways. The very same verse (in Matt 13) that says "aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?" also says "isn't this the carpenter's son?" If this proves that Mary had sex after Jesus was born, it must surely also prove that she had sex before Jesus was born as well.

Now there are those who do not accept the Virgin Birth; and to them I have nothing to say; we stand on opposite sides of a controversy and may just have to agree to disagree.

But those who believe in the Virgin Birth, but not the perpetual virginity, based on such texts as the one I quoted above, are trying to slice a hair that can't be sliced.

This whole thing (as I said earlier) is beginning to look more and more like an exercise in futility. We each have our pre-existing beliefs that we bring to the text. The text can't speak except through a lens; the choice of the lens makes all the difference in what the text ends up "saying."

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Anybody who believes in the Virgin Birth is trying to slice it both ways. The very same verse (in Matt 13) that says "aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?" also says "isn't this the carpenter's son?" If this proves that Mary had sex after Jesus was born, it must surely also prove that she had sex before Jesus was born as well.

No, it only proves that the people assumed she'd had sex with Joseph to conceive Jesus. I don't see Mary going around the town showing off her new-born son telling everyone "This is Jesus. He's the Son of God conceived of the Holy Spirit." - they'd have stoned her and the babe.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think that the "perpetual virginity" of Mary is proveable from scripture. I have discovered that "eos" means just the same as "until" "before". (Why can't I get these ampersands to work?) So no particular information there.

I do think that the verses Alan C mentions and the verse with the "eos" point towards the sexual nature of her marriage with Joseph. And I agree that the locals would assume that Joseph was the physical father - he wouldn't marry her if she'd been having it off with another guy, would he? [Wink]

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
And emphatically we should be discussing what the texts mean, after all this is Keryg.

But are you saying that the discussion of what they mean must be done only with reference to the Scriptures themselves and without any reference to Holy Tradition?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
homebild
Apprentice
# 1543

 - Posted      Profile for homebild   Email homebild   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That Mary was 'perpetually virgin' is not only not provable from the scripture, it is also not provable by tradition depsite what those who wish it were true claim it to be....

--------------------
"A man's home is his hassle..."

Posts: 50 | From: Pennsylvania USA | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
But are you saying that the discussion of what they mean must be done only with reference to the Scriptures themselves and without any reference to Holy Tradition?

No, I am not saying that. However, the reason that the Keryg board was set up was to discuss Bible texts. Tradition has a greater or lesser influence on this depending on your churchmanship.

In the Kerygmania Guide:
Bible study only – this board is intended for the study of the text of the Bible. It is not the place for general theological debate – please take that to Purgatory.

Our remit is the texts, Tradition can inform our discussions, but is not the focus of our attention.

bb - Kerygmania Host

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief wrote:

quote:
Anybody who believes in the Virgin Birth is trying to slice it both ways. The very same verse (in Matt 13) that says "aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?" also says "isn't this the carpenter's son?" If this proves that Mary had sex after Jesus was born, it must surely also prove that she had sex before Jesus was born as well.
I’d disagree with that as well. As Alan says, the people living at the time were likely to dismiss Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah as they’d known the family for years. If memory serves me correctly this would have been a fulfilment of the prophecy that the Messiah wasn’t accepted in his home town. (Can’t remember the verse – sorry [Embarrassed] ).

Speaking for myself, I don’t see how you can justify the claim that if this proves that Mary had sex after Jesus was born, it must surely prove that she had sex before Jesus was born as well” . As someone who gives Scripture more weight than tradition – which isn’t intended to be disrespectful – Scripture says that Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born. It says that Jesus had brothers and sisters – so it does allow for the possibility that Joseph and Mary had sex. It doesn’t say anything about other family members – apart from John the Baptist. Tradition says something completely different.

I’ve always found Joseph fairly inspiring – he trusted God and obeyed him even if when it would have been easier for him not to. He brought up Jesus as his own …

Mousethief also wrote:

quote:
This whole thing (as I said earlier) is beginning to look more and more like an exercise in futility. We each have our pre-existing beliefs that we bring to the text. The text can't speak except through a lens; the choice of the lens makes all the difference in what the text ends up "saying."
I’ve learnt a lot through reading this and other threads about how the lens each of us brings to the text (tradition v’s text only) infulences interpretation and application. We may have to agree to differ, but it doesn't make the discussion worthless.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps I am being slow but I still cannot see any problem with Joseph and Mary having sex after Jesus was born. There is nothing sinful about sex within marriage. In fact it is God ordained , so what is the problem????

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)

Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Janine

The Endless Simmer
# 3337

 - Posted      Profile for Janine   Email Janine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've thought about that a lot, Astro.

I wish I could put into sweeter words why I think some people have a problem with it. I'm sorry that the only illustrations that come to mind might seem rather crude, especially to people of a tradition that elevates Mary to divine status. Maybe I oughtn't to post them here.

If you'd really like to hear it PM me.

--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *

Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Astro, the only "problem" with Mary and Joseph having had sexual relations is that (we believe) it didn't happen. The problem isn't sex; it's truthfulness. If you were saying that Mary had blonde hair, we'd say the same (no, she didn't), not because there's anything wrong with being a blonde, but because she wasn't blonde.

Now, do you *have* to believe she had dark hair and was ever-virgin in order to be a Christian? Or even to be an Orthodox Christian? No. It's not something upon which salvation depends. But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant -- just that it's not essential.

Now, to be perfectly clear, Mary and Joseph didn't abstain from sexual relations because it would have been sinful to do otherwise. They abstained from sexual relations because they had something better. (If you can't imagine that anything could be better than sex, I can't help you. But I think C.S. Lewis talked about the subject in some of his essays on heaven.)

Mary's perpetual virginity was prophesied by Ezekial. In Chapter 40, it says:

quote:

1 Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. 2And the LORD said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. 3As for the prince, because he is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way."

Mary, of course, is the Temple, the living Temple where God dwelt. Ezekial told us that, once the Lord had entered by the door of the Temple, no one else would enter by it, and it would be shut. The door of the Temple is, of course, Mary's womb (which was more spacious than the heavens, because he who could not be contained by the heavens was contained in it). From that, we see that Mary could bear no other child than God.

Likewise, we know that, in Israel, anything that was consecrated for God's use could never be put to common use again. For this reason, Mary could have no other child.

But this was not a hardship for her. As I have said before, she and Joseph lacked nothing in their marriage.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Likewise, we know that, in Israel, anything that was consecrated for God's use could never be put to common use again. For this reason, Mary could have no other child.

Although I think that we will have to agreee to differ, that is about the best arguement that I have heard in favour of Mary's perpetual virginity.

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)

Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
da_musicman
Shipmate
# 1018

 - Posted      Profile for da_musicman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If you wanted me to "prove" the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos from Scriptures, I could, for example, point to verses from the prophets that foretold Mary and the fact that she would remain a virgin after giving birth

I'm intrigued by what these scriptures are.Can anyone provide any pointers towards them?
Posts: 3202 | From: The Dreaming | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by da_Musicman:
I'm intrigued by what these scriptures are.Can anyone provide any pointers towards them?

Isn't that what Josephine just did?

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
quote:
Likewise, we know that, in Israel, anything that was consecrated for God's use could never be put to common use again. For this reason, Mary could have no other child.

Although I think that we will have to agreee to differ, that is about the best arguement that I have heard in favour of Mary's perpetual virginity.
I'd second that. It's an explanation that "works" regardless of the weight that you give to either tradtion or scripture.

Tubbs

[ 08. April 2003, 08:29: Message edited by: Mrs Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Priest
BANNED
# 4313

 - Posted      Profile for Priest         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:

Likewise, we know that, in Israel, anything that was consecrated for God's use could never be put to common use again. For this reason, Mary could have no other child.

Good answer but flawed in that it belittles procreation as an anamilistic urge rather than the special thing that it is.

BTW Josephine, my previous question was aimed at no one in particular.

Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:

Likewise, we know that, in Israel, anything that was consecrated for God's use could never be put to common use again. For this reason, Mary could have no other child.

Good answer but flawed in that it belittles procreation as an anamilistic urge rather than the special thing that it is.
How do you figure that? I don't follow your reasoning at all.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Priest
BANNED
# 4313

 - Posted      Profile for Priest         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well I cannot see how bringing forth children into the world can be seen as "common usage".
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[pedant mode] The quote from Ezekiel should, I think, have been attributed to chapter 44. [/pedant mode]

The preceding chapters of Ezekiel (i.e. 40 to 43) describe in detail the physical dimensions of a physical temple (as revealed in a vision). These dimensions (described in cubits adn detailing interior as well as exterior dimensions) would not likely be correct as applied to Mary. Therefore, I find it difficult to see such a change in the object being described in chapter 44 to determine that it is now Mary being described.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I also have problems with Mary as the temple. It sounds as if people were desperately hunting for a text that could just about be mangled to fit and choose that one.

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But the Scriptures are the earliest Tradition of the church. The New Testament contains all we know about the Lord's incarnation on earth and the doings of the first generation of Christians - everything else is conjecture.

So, by the test of Antiquity, the New Testament must over-ride all traditions which cannot be proved from it.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Agreeing with sharkshooter; I was reading through Ezekiel to find, eventually, chapter 44. In the context of the whole passage/chapters, i don't see how it can apply to Mary.

However, I realize that many interpretations are put on individual verses and passages from what seem odd angles (the writers of the NT did this).

So, who chose to decide this was a metaphor for Mary?

When did it arrive as that metaphor?

Why, if it was from the first years of the church, is it not mentioned in scripture?

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Priest and josephine,

I think that procreation is one of the ways in which we are in the image of God, who is eternally creating and sustaining the universe.

To be united sexually in marriage is also a picture of the way God is eternally in conjunctio, with God. Also the picture of Jesus and the Church as His bride shows His union with us.

So the sexual union of Mary and Joseph is not Joseph "using" Mary when she was consecrated to God, but rather part of the image of God.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
homebild
Apprentice
# 1543

 - Posted      Profile for homebild   Email homebild   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some of those who are promoting Mary's perpetual virginity forget that there were equally accepted traditions that did not support her perpetual virginity, assumption, sinlessness, etc....

What is being promoted isn't even 'tradition' per se, but tradition of choice as it relates to Mary. [Ultra confused]

--------------------
"A man's home is his hassle..."

Posts: 50 | From: Pennsylvania USA | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
homebild
Apprentice
# 1543

 - Posted      Profile for homebild   Email homebild   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Change? CHANGE? [Yipee]

--------------------
"A man's home is his hassle..."

Posts: 50 | From: Pennsylvania USA | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scarlet

Mellon Collie
# 1738

 - Posted      Profile for Scarlet         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by homebild:
Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Change? CHANGE? [Yipee]

What makes you think we use lightbulbs? [Razz]

--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer

Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
So the sexual union of Mary and Joseph is not Joseph "using" Mary when she was consecrated to God, but rather part of the image of God.

I think you're fixated on the word "use" -- would it help if we used a different verb?

Compared to delivering the Son of God, having children the normal way is "common." And the Jewish rules of sanctification would not permit something once consecrated to return to "common" activity, so to speak.

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Regarding Mary as the Temple: the Church Fathers interpreted the Old Testament typologically; that is, they believed that the things in the OT signified or foreshadowed those things made manifest in the New. That's not the way the OT is usually read in Protestant churches today, but that's the way the early Church read it. So, for example, Noah and his family being saved through the flood, and Moses and the Israelites being saved through the Red Sea, are both types of baptism.

When the first Christians read the OT, they saw the Bush that burned but was not consumed as a type of Mary; also the jar that held the manna; and the Ark; and most especially the Temple. That may seem strained if you're not accustomed to reading the OT in that way, but it is the way the Church read the OT from the very beginning.

Regarding the NT being the earliest tradition of the Church -- that's simply nonsense. The canon of the NT was fixed by a local council of Rome in 382, then affirmed by Councils in Hippo (393), Carthage (397) and finally affirmed by the Second Council of Nicea (787), one of the Ecumenical Councils whose decrees were considered binding, not just on the local Church but on the entire Church. The Canon of Holy Scripture does not include all that is written or known of the life of our Lord or his Mother; merely all the writings that may be read during the Services of the Church. That's what the canon was for.

I'm afraid I can't go a lot further with this thread; for one, Baby Bear has already said this isn't the place to discuss Holy Tradition, and I'm afraid that there's no way for me to discuss it meaningfully without doing exactly that. If you don't understand what we mean by Holy Tradition (as Ken and Homebild clearly do not), then you're not going to understand what I'm trying to say, and it will be a frustrating exercise for all of us, without any real communication going on.

If you want to know what the early Christians thought about Mary, you might read the Protoevangelium of James, or go to the online version of the Ante Nicene Fathers and read what they had to say. They're far more eloquent than I am anyway.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by homebild:
Some of those who are promoting Mary's perpetual virginity forget that there were equally accepted traditions that did not support her perpetual virginity, assumption, sinlessness, etc....

Who?

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Baby Bear has already said this isn't the place to discuss Holy Tradition, and I'm afraid that there's no way for me to discuss it meaningfully without doing exactly that.

It does sounds interesting. I really do urge you to take it to Purg.

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by homebild:
Some of those who are promoting Mary's perpetual virginity forget that there were equally accepted traditions that did not support her perpetual virginity, assumption, sinlessness, etc....

Who?

Reader Alexis

Some of the different images and traditions surrounding Mary are explored in "Alone of All Her Sex The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary" (London, l976) Vintage (paperback) UK, US by Marina Warner. Warner's website has an extract

It's absolutely fascinating - particularly when you read about some of the complete volte faces (?) by the church. Eg: Some of the early pictures of Mary show her suckling the infant Jesus and there were devotions attached to "the virgin's milk". When the church started emphasising Mary's other qualities - such as being born without sin - the virgin's milk stuff was played down as it made her too "human".

Tubbs

[ 09. April 2003, 08:30: Message edited by: Mrs Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Baby Bear has already said this isn't the place to discuss Holy Tradition, and I'm afraid that there's no way for me to discuss it meaningfully without doing exactly that.

It does sounds interesting. I really do urge you to take it to Purg. bb
I agree with babybear. This would make a very interesting Purgatory thread. Please start it.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
josephine:
quote:
Regarding Mary as the Temple: the Church Fathers interpreted the Old Testament typologically; that is, they believed that the things in the OT signified or foreshadowed those things made manifest in the New. That's not the way the OT is usually read in Protestant churches today, but that's the way the early Church read it. So, for example, Noah and his family being saved through the flood, and Moses and the Israelites being saved through the Red Sea, are both types of baptism.
I am used to typology, which is also a protestant way of doing things. But we take it both ways, as what is described/written and also as having a deeper meaning. It's common christian usage to understand the crossing of the Red Sea and the escape from the flood as types of baptism. Neither you nor I can claim it as exclusive to or tradition.

But still, I'm waiting for the answer as to who, where and when this particular interpretation arose.

Are we going back up to the Virgin Mary thread or will you be starting one on "Tradition"? IMO we could go back to her thread.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
as exclusive to or tradition.

[Embarrassed] "our tradition"

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very informative, josephine. Thank you. Not that I necessarily agree, but now I understand where you are coming from.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
homebild
Apprentice
# 1543

 - Posted      Profile for homebild   Email homebild   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Reader Lexis asked in regards to the various early traditons of Mary:

"Who"?

Prior to the adoption of the perpetual Virginity of Mary by the Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, there did NOT exist a cohesive and universal tradition about her perpetual virginity and in fact the teaching was dismissed as fable by Helvidius, Tertullian, and Victorinus to name a few. All these refuted the peprpetual virginity teaching based squarely on the fact that Scripture refutes it.

So the 'modern' tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity is based on selective tradtion...

But of course, the beautiful thing about claiming Church Traditon as being infallible is the very circular reasoning behind it.

It requires no facts. It requires no historical evidence. It requires no Scriptural support. It just is because the "Church" says it is....and how dare you question the Church, thank you very much...

Who knows just WHAT traditions will have been adopted into the churhc a thousand years from now based on that reasoning? That Tony Blair and George W Bush were really Orthodox and Saints of the Church at that? And themselves perpetually virgin?

Oy vey!

--------------------
"A man's home is his hassle..."

Posts: 50 | From: Pennsylvania USA | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
the Church Fathers interpreted the Old Testament typologically; that is, they believed that the things in the OT signified or foreshadowed those things made manifest in the New. That's not the way the OT is usually read in Protestant churches today,

Oh yes it is. It is exactly the way many evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants read the Old Testament.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If you don't understand what we mean by Holy Tradition (as Ken and Homebild clearly do not), then you're not going to understand what I'm trying to say, and it will be a frustrating exercise for all of us, without any real communication going on.

I do know what you mean by it and I disagree with you. I think you are wrong. That's not the same thing as understnding at all.

And you know perfectly well that although the canon of the New Testament was fixed in the 4th & 5th centuries, the books themselves date back to apostolic times, and are an earlier account than anything else we now have.

[sweep, sweep - keeping the code clean and clear]

[ 09. April 2003, 20:48: Message edited by: babybear ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I do know what you mean by it and I disagree with you. I think you are wrong. That's not the same thing as understnding at all.

Fine. I don't have the time or patience to get into a spitting contest about it. But if you decide that maybe a reasonably well educated Orthodox Christian *might* happen to know more than you do about her own faith, and that it's possible that you have misunderstood important aspects of it (as you certainly have, or you would not have said "the New Testament must over-ride all traditions which cannot be proved from it"), and if you are willing to learn something, let me know. No, better yet, just grab a stack of books by Father Alexander Schmemann, and read them.

(And, btw, homebild, the fact that there are differences of opinion before an Ecumenical Council rules on an issue is no surprise to me. You see the same thing in the Gospel, at the Council at Jerusalem, where the issue of circumcision for converts was decided upon. Before the council, there were not differences of Holy Tradition, there were simply differences of opinion. Likewise regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. We don't believe that all the Fathers of the Church wrote infallibly at all times. They made mistakes. But the Church does not incorporate the things they got wrong into Holy Tradition.)

quote:
And you know perfectly well that although the canon of the New Testament was fixed in the 4th & 5th centuries, the books themselves date back to apostolic times, and are an earlier account than anything else we now have.
The NT writings are NOT the oldest tradition the Church has. They are not older than the practice of Baptism, are not older than the Eucharist, are not older than Sunday worship in honor of the Resurrection of our Lord. They are not all older than the Didache, nor than the 1st Epistle of Clement.

The apostles did not write the NT first, then set up the Church according to what they wrote. The Church came first, and in the context of the Church, they wrote. They, and many others as well.

And because the Church was there, worshipping, eventually the question came up, "Which writings can we read during the divine services?" The list is not everything that is true, or everything that is known about our Lord or the Apostles, and was never intended to be such. The list is merely a list of those writings that are approved for use during divine services. It was compiled because some churches used, say, the Shepherd of Hermas, and some did not. The bishops of the Church thought it was important that everyone use the same list, and that's where the NT canon came from.

But I'm already testing bb's patience with this, I know, so I'll stop now.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marinaki

Varangian Guard
# 343

 - Posted      Profile for Marinaki   Author's homepage   Email Marinaki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely you meant to refer everybody to the article
Which came first the Church or the New Testament?
It would make an interesting discussion in and of itself! [Wink]

--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."

Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools