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 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: Did Joseph "know" Mary?
homebild
Apprentice
# 1543

 - Posted      Profile for homebild   Email homebild   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would simply like to conclude, as did Ken, that I DO understand what Orthodox Christians mean by "Tradition" and I too, reject their notion.

I am not about denigrating Orthodoxy or its Holy Tradition, in fact my MOTHER was an Orthodox believer (or rather a UNIATE believer) which I also know according to YOU folks doesn't quite count despite there being only minor political and liturgical differance.

In fact I am kept but steps away from actually EMBRACING Orthodoxy as my own faith but for its own ridiculous claims concerning "Tradition" and its hypocritical 'let me help you remove the mote from your eye and please ignore the tree trunk in mine' posture.

I'll simply leave it at that so as not to get nasty in my responses.

Personally speaking and by my own studies I consider the Orthodox-Catholic-Anglican Tradtions or 'High Churches' to be much more true to the original first century arrangement than are modern protestant sects...but for any one of the Orthodox, Catholic, or other 'ancent' chruches to claim absolute infallibility in tradition or perfection in observance or in proclamation is just absurd. There never has been such a thing. There has ALWAYS been dissent....Dissent to the nature of Christ... to how many books should be considered scripture... to just who 'anathematized' whom in the Great Schism: the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox.

Believe your 'Holy Tradition' if you like, but please excuse the rest of us if we cannot. Especially when the facts and Scripture and even common sense cannot allow us the same indulgence..

We still remain agreed on the basics of the Gospel and the basics of Christ and unfortunately, Mary does not really figure into ANY OF IT except for the fact she bore the Son of God.

She remains Theotokas not because of anything she did, but because of whom Christ, her Son, was....

As I type I am looking at an icon on my office wall of the 'Presentation of Jesus' given to me by an Orthodox brother as a birthday present. My birthday is February 2...40 days after the birth of Christ. I remain deeply touched by the gesture.

I also have an Byzantine icon on my wall of the Theotokas in remembrance of her and what she did. Exactly identical to the Orthdox icon except it has been stamped in silver.

I also live a few miles from St Tikhon's Seminary in South Cannan , Pennsylvania and have had the privelege to have known many of their seminarians and participating Orthodox faithful thru the years.

We are MUCH more appreciative of one another's views than those Orthodox who have posted in this thread to date.

My only conclusion from this thread is that DESPITE the Orthodox and Catholic CLAIM of truthfulness by 'Holy Tradition' as to the Dormition, Assumption or perpetual Virginity of Mary, these claims are fraught with weakness and forever will be despite how many 'official' pronouncements are made to the contrary. They just do not add up.....and there will always be those of us who are fully orhotodox in our understanding of Jesus Chrust and His Gospel who yet fully REJECT Orthodox and Catholic claims to something 'more' for Mary.

If you can't accept us too bad.

We aren't really losing any sleep over you either...

I pray we may someday be one in Christ and to know HIM fully.

But don't patronize us that we just 'don't understand' "Holy Tradition"...We do....and what you present as "Holy Traditon", well, frankly, is NOT.

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

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

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
First of all, Homebild, it is rude to purposely mangle somebody else's name, and I would like an apology. Now.

quote:
Originally posted by homebild:
I would simply like to conclude, as did Ken, that I DO understand what Orthodox Christians mean by "Tradition" and I too, reject their notion.

I am not about denigrating Orthodoxy or its Holy Tradition, in fact my MOTHER was an Orthodox believer (or rather a UNIATE believer) which I also know according to YOU folks doesn't quite count despite there being only minor political and liturgical differance.

This second paragraph proves the first to be false. If you think the difference between the Orthodox and the Uniates is minor, or merely political and liturgical, you don't understand Orthodoxy at all.

quote:
In fact I am kept but steps away from actually EMBRACING Orthodoxy as my own faith but for its own ridiculous claims concerning "Tradition" and its hypocritical 'let me help you remove the mote from your eye and please ignore the tree trunk in mine' posture.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I've never gotten that impression from Orthodox writers or speakers. I wonder who you've been talking to / reading?

quote:
I'll simply leave it at that so as not to get nasty in my responses.
Too late.

quote:
to just who 'anathematized' whom in the Great Schism: the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox.
Actually on this it is quite clear: each side anathematized the other.

quote:
Believe your 'Holy Tradition' if you like, but please excuse the rest of us if we cannot.
Works for me. I don't remember ever telling somebody they HAD to believe in Holy Tradition, or that they'd go to hell if they didn't. Of course not everybody on the other side returns this favor, but hey nobody's perfect.

quote:
Especially when the facts and Scripture and even common sense cannot allow us the same indulgence..
Puh-leeze. Rhetoric overboard.

quote:
We still remain agreed on the basics of the Gospel and the basics of Christ
Do we? I'm not so sure.

quote:
and unfortunately, Mary does not really figure into ANY OF IT except for the fact she bore the Son of God.
And, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, the perpetual virginity of Mary is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, and therefore you can be an Orthodox in good standing without believing it. Try to have some perspective here.

quote:
She remains Theotokas not because of anything she did, but because of whom Christ, her Son, was....
This is kind of muddled. What she did was agree to Gabriel's anouncement, then carry and bear him. That's not something she did? if she didn't, she wouldn't be Theotokos.

quote:
We are MUCH more appreciative of one another's views than those Orthodox who have posted in this thread to date.
That's a little presumptuous. You don't even know me, and can tell from a small handful of posts how appreciative I am of other viewpoints? I wouldn't even BE here on the SOF if I was as dismissive of the views of Protestants and Catholics as you are of Orthodoxy.

quote:
If you can't accept us too bad.
Who said we can't accept you? You're developing a little persecution complex here, it would seem.

quote:
We aren't really losing any sleep over you either...
How Christian of you to say so.

quote:
I pray we may someday be one in Christ and to know HIM fully.
I heartily concur.

quote:
But don't patronize us that we just 'don't understand' "Holy Tradition"...We do....
Some of you do. Some of you most emphatically do not.

quote:
and what you present as "Holy Traditon", well, frankly, is NOT.
On this, quite obviously, we shall have to agree to disagree.

Reader Alexis

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
homebild
Apprentice
# 1543

 - Posted      Profile for homebild   Email homebild   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief/Reader Alexis wrote:

"First of all, Homebild, it is rude to purposely mangle somebody else's name, and I would like an apology. Now"

Sorry, bud. Methinks you are having some kind of breakdown...?

I have no clue WHAT you are talking about let alone what you except me to ficticiously apologize for.

All I can say about 'apologies' sir, is AFTER YOU!

--------------------
"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 
[hostly biretta on]

Names
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
First of all, Homebild, it is rude to purposely mangle somebody else's name, and I would like an apology. Now

quote:
Originally posted by homebild:
I have no clue WHAT you are talking about let alone what you except me to ficticiously apologize for.

homebild called Mousethief - "Reader Lexis".
Mousethief called homebild - "Homebild"
josephine called babybear - "Baby Bear"

The three of us have had our named changed to some degree. It happens! It happens when think they know the spelling of a person's name, and so don't actually check.

I know how to spell Mousethief. I had to check with both homebild (small 'h', no 'u) and josephine (small 'j').

Tradition
I shall say again, take it to Purg.

Bickering
Take it to Hell; the place designed for the irracible.

[hostly biretta off]

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
homebild
Apprentice
# 1543

 - Posted      Profile for homebild   Email homebild   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh my God! so I am going to Be confined to hell and edure other's insults because I lost three fingers in an industrial accident and cannot type worth a crap? Typed "Alexis" and it took "Lexis"?

Excuse me, but I'd rather just never post here again if THAT is the criteria used for us "cripples".

I'm mad enough just now to go tell everyone to go fuck themselves...... [Frown]

--------------------
"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 
[hostly biretta on]

homebild, I can see that you are very angry. Please consider not posting anything until you are not so angry. I wouldn't like to see you fall foul of the Ship's Commandments because of posting in anger.

quote:
homebild wrote:
so I am going to Be confined to hell

I know that you are still an apprentice, but you have been posting on the Ship for a while now. I assumed that you understood that the board "Hell" was:
the refuge of the irascible, the contentious and the just plain pissed off.

quote:
..endure other's insults because I lost three fingers in an industrial accident and cannot type worth a crap
Loosing fingers in an accident is horrible. But your typing is up to par with the rest of the shipmates. Until the missed 'A' in 'Alexis', I can't say that I have noticed anything wrong with your spelling.

We have shipmates who are dyslexic, who have very little vision, who have only one arm, who have nerve damage in their fingers etc. The very nature of the boards means that by and large such disabilities are invisible. It is a level playing field for all of us.

A spelling mistake is a spelling mistake. There are times when it can lead to much amusement, eg Alan Cresswell selling 'brides' instead of 'bribes', or Tom Day having a 'sex date' instead of a 'sexy date'. It is no big deal. If during a 'heated exchange' a spelling mistake is made, then it can assume far more significance that it is due.

I would not like to see you disappear from the Ship over a missing 'A'.

[/hostly biretta off]

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634

 - Posted      Profile for I_am_not_Job   Email I_am_not_Job   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
2 thoughts

- no-one has mentioned the theory that Mary's increased prominence in the first few centures of the early church was due to the Church doing the sort of subtle syncretism (though trying not to go far) that it did with lots of other things. The fact that many Gentiles were used to female gods etc was why devotion to Mary was encouraged and used as an evangelistic tool. (Other examples being the aligning Christian festivals with other pagan ones etc).

- What is the Catholic/Othodox/High Church response to the fact that certain traditions have been proved wrong and even pronouncements made of apology (I'm thinking in particular of the age old 'tradition' of anti-semitism). I do realise that that wasn't so much a 'doctrine' but then, as Mousethief etc have pointed out, their views on Mary are not 'doctrine' in that they are not tenets that must be held for guaranteed salvation.

--------------------
Hope for everything; expect nothing

Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 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 babybear:
Tradition
I shall say again, take it to Purg.

I'm going to start a new thread called "Tradition and the New Testament" then.

--------------------
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 I_am_not_Job:
their views on Mary are not 'doctrine' in that they are not tenets that must be held for guaranteed salvation.

The beliefs about Mary are doctrine but not dogma.

A doctrine is simply something that is taught. Dogmas are those doctrines that are officially set forth as necessary or binding.

In the Orthodox Church, all our dogma relates specifically either to the Incarnation or to the Holy Trinity, which form the foundation of all our belief. Thus, with respect to Mary, the only dogma that we have is that she was a virgin when Jesus was born, and that she is Theotokos, the Mother of God.

However, there are other important doctrines about her that are given to us through Holy Tradition (including, of course, but not limited to the Holy Scriptures), and those things we believe, teach, pray, and sing. And there are still other doctrines that are believed by some but not others -- those things don't make it into our prayers and hymns, but are the private beliefs of individual Orthodox Christians.

--------------------
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
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
host hat on

Does anyone have anything more to contribute to this thread which does not involve a discussion of Tradition?

host hat off

Moo

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

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Does anyone have anything more to contribute to this thread which does not involve a discussion of Tradition?

Not I.

Reader Alexis

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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 
I've just noticed that the same thing is being discussed over here Monachos Net. It is a forum populated by scholars etc. and they are discussing the word "eos"

--------------------
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
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Albeit from a very firm Orthodox perspective - it is not in any way a "balanced" discussion)

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
MadKaren
Shipmate
# 1033

 - Posted      Profile for MadKaren   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ummm

This bit referred to in the ProtoEvangelium as quoted from DaisyMays post.

quote:
Then later on, not in the same document, I came across the idea that Mary was not only a virgin when she conceived and up to his birth, but that the birth took place without pain (These ideas are in the Odes of Solomon and the Ascension of Isaiah.) and without destroying her hymen (St Ambrose of Milan says,"The manner of her birth did not break the seals of virginity.") so she remained perpetually virgin if Joseph did not have penetrative sex with her.
Whats going on there? What do people think about that idea?

MadKaren

--------------------
--
Why do people who claim to love God embarrass him in public?

Posts: 866 | From: Jumping along the line between genius and insanity.... | Registered: Aug 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 
I do not see how a baby could get out of the birth canal if the hymen were unbroken.

Moo

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

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I do not see how a baby could get out of the birth canal if the hymen were unbroken.

I don't see how a virgin can get pregnant either. But I believe it.

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:
I don't see how a virgin can get pregnant either. But I believe it.

This is the problem. By having the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception, her sinlessness, her assumption etc, is it asking us to believe so many things that are without basis in the Bible, and that are not essenctial for our salvation.

I can believe in the virginity of Mary at the time of becoming pregnant with Jesus and that she didn't have any sexual relations until after Jesus was born. I can't believe that Mary herself had an immaculate conception, that she was sinless, that she was every virgin, nor that she was assumed into heaven. I can't believe those things, because they are not in the Bible.

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:
I can believe in the virginity of Mary at the time of becoming pregnant with Jesus and that she didn't have any sexual relations until after Jesus was born. I can't believe that Mary herself had an immaculate conception, that she was sinless, that she was every virgin, nor that she was assumed into heaven. I can't believe those things, because they are not in the Bible.

So, babybear, would you explain to me the rules you use in deciding what to believe?

It seems as though you're saying that you can't believe anything that's not in the Bible, but I don't believe that. In the first place, it isn't in the Bible that one must believe only that which is in the Bible, so if you wanted to believe only those things that are in the Bible, you'd have to have an authority *outside* the Bible to tell you to believe only what's in the Bible. That outside authority would be your true authority, not the Bible.

In the second place, and I'm sure you believe many, many things that are not in the Bible. I would assume that you believe that white light is composed of many colors of light of various wavelengths, that there are 9 planets in the solar system, that the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration. None of this information is in the Bible.

So on what basis do you accept some things that aren't in the Bible, but reject other things that aren't in the Bible? What, or who, is your real authority?

--------------------
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
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
josephine, the teaching tradition in (many parts of? all of?) the Protestant Church would limit belief in matters of faith to what can be proved form the Bible. The 39 Articles in the Book of Commom Prayer, which are the foundation of the Church of England, basically say this for example. babybear's statement was perfectly in accord with the tradition of her church.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 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:
would you explain to me the rules you use in deciding what to believe?

Like you, I use the Traditions of the Church. However, in the Reformed Tradition the citeria are scripture, reason and experience.

quote:
It seems as though you're saying that you can't believe anything that's not in the Bible,
I agree, it does read like that, but last night my brain was too tired to try to explain it more fully. There are loads and loads of things not mentioned in the Bible, pepperoni pizza, computers, colour theory, but I am very happy to accept their existance.

quote:
it isn't in the Bible that one must believe only that which is in the Bible
Again I fully agree. The Bible is a collection of works telling us of God's dealing with people. There are many things about God that we are not told.

quote:
if you wanted to believe only those things that are in the Bible, you'd have to have an authority *outside* the Bible. That outside authority would be your true authority, not the Bible.
That would be the Word of God, Jesus. The ultimate authority is God. How do I know, cos it is written in the Bible! Circular, but a statement of faith. I can offer no evidence that would allow us to do properly conducted scientific experiements. The Bible tells me, my reason confirms it, as does my experience (and the experience of many others).

quote:
I'm sure you believe many, many things that are not in the Bible. I would assume that you believe that white light is composed of many colors of light of various wavelengths,
No, I don't believe those things. I can intellectually agree with those things, but believe? I don't believe in the chair that I am sitting up, but I know it is there.

quote:
So on what basis do you accept some things that aren't in the Bible, but reject other things that aren't in the Bible? What, or who, is your real authority?
I accept things based on reason and experience. But those are not things that I believe. Belief is about the things 'neccesary for salvation'. I am quite happy with the Creeds etc and would say that those are a 'distilled' statement of the Christian faith.

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 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 
(bump)

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

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

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Moo, I looked in Purg, Limbo and DH but somehow missed this one!
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 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 
To find it, you had to click on 'Show all threads' at the top of the index page.

Moo

[ 12. August 2003, 15:10: Message edited by: Moo ]

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

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
I accept things based on reason and experience. But those are not things that I believe. Belief is about the things 'neccesary for salvation'.

Main Entry: be·lieve
Pronunciation: b&-'lEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): be·lieved; be·liev·ing
Etymology: Middle English beleven, from Old English belEfan, from be- + lyfan, lEfan to allow, believe; akin to Old High German gilouben to believe, Old English lEof dear -- more at LOVE
Date: before 12th century
intransitive senses
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>
transitive senses
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I believe it will rain soon>

BB, you're playing semantic games.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This whole issue inter-relates with the separate thread on lust as, if one believes that Mary remained a virgin all her life, that implies there is something sinful about having sex after marriage which there clearly isn't.

The reason for the Virgin Birth was so that Jesus was fully God and fully man and because the Bible suggests that the sin of Adam is carried through the male line. The Bible refers to Jesus being the second Adam-a new start for the human race. For him to be that, he could not be a son of the first Adam.

None of that requires Mary to remain a virgin through her life. Without getting into the debate about Tradition, one thing which surely must be true is that Tradition cannot contradict Scripture (otherwise one is placing Tradition in a higher place that Scripture). As has been well rehersed above, Jesus had brothers. Morover in Genesis 1 God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth-implicitly to have lots of sex! He then said that all he had made was very good. To claim that mary remained a virgin is not only contradct the facts stated in the new Testament, it also creates a 'dirty' view of sex which goes against God's very intention in creation.

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  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 know if this is only in the reformed tradition, but "belief" in spiritual terms contains much more than an intellectual acceptance of a fact or object.

It includes "trust" and "committment" to the One believed in.

This is an idea and definition taught very early on, in Sunday Schools as well as to adults and is a basic.

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

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 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 daisymay:
I don't know if this is only in the reformed tradition, but "belief" in spiritual terms contains much more than an intellectual acceptance of a fact or object.

It includes "trust" and "committment" to the One believed in.

It's not just the reformed tradition; it's in the Bible also.

Here is James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.

Moo

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

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | 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 Jeff Featherstone:
if one believes that Mary remained a virgin all her life, that implies there is something sinful about having sex after marriage

Ahh, Jeff, did you read the rest of this thread before posting this? I think this was adequately dealt with on the first page.

To summarize briefly: Your statement above is a complete non sequiter. It doesn't follow. Mary didn't have sex after she was married. She wasn't a blonde, either. Neither married sex nor being blonde is sinful. Got it?

quote:
As has been well rehersed above, Jesus had brothers.
As has been well rehearsed above, they were Joseph's sons.

quote:
Morover in Genesis 1 God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth-implicitly to have lots of sex!
Is this commandment universal? The implications if it is are, well, [Eek!] . If not, then the idea that Mary could not have remained a virgin because of this commandment just doesn't follow.

--------------------
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
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
[qb]if one believes that Mary remained a virgin all her life, that implies there is something sinful about having sex after marriage

Ahh, Jeff, did you read the rest of this thread before posting this? I think this was adequately dealt with on the first page.

To summarize briefly: Your statement above is a complete non sequiter. It doesn't follow. Mary didn't have sex after she was married. She wasn't a blonde, either. Neither married sex nor being blonde is sinful. Got it?

Yes I have read the fist page. However sorry, but your argument isn't convincing. There is a big difference between whether someone is blonde and whether they remined a virgin. One has to ask, what purpose would it serve for God to require her to remain a virgin?

Two possibilities occur to me. Either it was because there was something sinful about sex which would detract from being the mother of the son of God or it was becuase the action represented some sort of prophetic symbolism in similar way to the actions of many other prophets. The former I have dealt with above. With regard to the latter, I find it hard to think of any prophetic message which such an action would communicate.

quote:
As has been well rehersed above, Jesus had brothers.
As has been well rehearsed above, they were Joseph's sons.

Sorry but I cannot see any basis in scripture for that statment. I've read the discussion above about the original Aramaic/Greek and it seems to me that the argument about the word meaning half-brothers or cousins is purely based on believing something from Tradition and then going back to scripture to make the word strech to include that meaning. There is not even a hint in scripture that the word means anthing other than brothers-and even if it menat half-brothers, is that not more likely to refer to the fact that his brothers were the children of joseph and Mary whereas he was purely the son of Mary?

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by josephine:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
[qb]if one believes that Mary remained a virgin all her life, that implies there is something sinful about having sex after marriage

Ahh, Jeff, did you read the rest of this thread before posting this? I think this was adequately dealt with on the first page.

To summarize briefly: Your statement above is a complete non sequiter. It doesn't follow. Mary didn't have sex after she was married. She wasn't a blonde, either. Neither married sex nor being blonde is sinful. Got it?

Yes I have read the first page. However sorry, but your argument isn't convincing. There is a big difference between whether someone is blonde and whether they remined a virgin. One has to ask, what purpose would it serve for God to require her to remain a virgin?

Two possibilities occur to me. Either it was because there was something sinful about sex which would detract from being the mother of the son of God or it was becuase the action represented some sort of prophetic symbolism in similar way to the actions of many other prophets. The former I have dealt with above. With regard to the latter, I find it hard to think of any prophetic message which such an action would communicate.

quote:
As has been well rehersed above, Jesus had brothers.
As has been well rehearsed above, they were Joseph's sons.

Sorry but I cannot see any basis in scripture for that statment. I've read the discussion above about the original Aramaic/Greek and it seems to me that the argument about the word meaning half-brothers or cousins is purely based on believing something from Tradition and then going back to scripture to make the word strech to include that meaning. There is not even a hint in scripture that the word means anthing other than brothers-and even if it menat half-brothers, is that not more likely to refer to the fact that his brothers were the children of Joseph and Mary whereas he was purely the son of Mary?

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 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 Jeff Featherstone:
One has to ask, what purpose would it serve for God to require her to remain a virgin?

Two possibilities occur to me. Either it was because there was something sinful about sex which would detract from being the mother of the son of God or it was becuase the action represented some sort of prophetic symbolism in similar way to the actions of many other prophets.

First of all, that she remained a virgin doesn't mean that God required her to remain a virgin.

Second, that only two possibilities occur to you doesn't mean there are only two possibilities. You neglected other possibilities that were already discussed on this thread:

First, Mary remained a virgin to fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy (chapter 44:1-3). We understand the Temple to be a type or foreshadowoing Mary, the living Temple where God dwelt in the flesh. Ezekial told us that, once the Lord had entered by the door of the Temple, no one else would enter by it, and the door would be shut. The door 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.

Further, as I said before, 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.

Therefore, she remained a virgin her entire life, and therefore, she had no other children.

--------------------
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 Jeff Featherstone:
There is not even a hint in scripture that the word means anthing other than brothers

Really? Not a single scripture in which "brother" or "sister" is used metaphorically or for some sort of relationship (blood or otherwise) which isn't child-of-the-same-parent(s)? Never?

Ooooh, this is going to be fun. I'll assemble my list of scripture references offline and then post back when I'm done. [Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | 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 
Genesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan. (the person taken captive was Lot, who was Abram's nephew, not his brother)

Genesis 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. (ditto)

Genesis 29:15 And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? Tell me, what shall thy wages be? (Jacob is Laban's nephew, not his brother)

Numbers 20:14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us (Israel is not the king of Edom's brother -- it is another nation nearby his own.)

Deuteronomy 15:12 If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. (Clearly here "brother" means any fellow Hebrew)

Deuteronomy 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother (Clearly "brother" here is being stretched even further than all Israelites, to include all Edomites as well!)

Deuteronomy 23:20 unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest, that Jehovah thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Clearly here we're back to brother=fellow Israelite)

2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: Thy love to me was wonderful, Passing the love of women. (David and Jonathan were not sons of the same parent(s))

Acts 9:17 And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (Surely you don't want to tell me that Ananias and Saul were sons of the same parent(s)?)

Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling. (Clearly here "brother" does not mean "brother" but fellow-
Christian?)


2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia (here it presumably means more than just fellow-christian -- perhaps more like fellow-apostle?)

Philemon 1:16 no longer as a servant, but more than a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much rather to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Ah, becoming Christians makes you and your slave brothers in the flesh!)

James 4:11 Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. (Again here it surely means "fellow Christian"?)

(Actually I gave up doing anything but sampling once I hit Romans -- the metaphorical uses of "brother" are simply too thick.)

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In terms of the OT references, fair point but the NT was written in Greek (though, as noted abouve, in this case, referring back to statements in Aramaic). Moreover it was written in ordinary everyday Greek to be as accessible as possible. Personally I find it doubful that an ambiguity that exisated in Hebrew would be replicated via Aramaic into everyday Greek.

With regard to the NT references, the contexts are all ones where it is clear that spiritual brotherhood is being referred to. The ones which refer to Jesus' brothers are ones which are clearly referring to his brothers as opposed to the generality of brothers i.e. 'your brothers are outside to see you'-clearly it means something separate to the generality of peole around him. 'James, the brother of Jesus'-why would he be identified as such if it only meant the same as the status of any beleiver reading the letter?

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
One has to ask, what purpose would it serve for God to require her to remain a virgin?

Two possibilities occur to me. Either it was because there was something sinful about sex which would detract from being the mother of the son of God or it was becuase the action represented some sort of prophetic symbolism in similar way to the actions of many other prophets.

First of all, that she remained a virgin doesn't mean that God required her to remain a virgin.

Mary remained a virgin to fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy (chapter 44:1-3). We understand the Temple to be a type or foreshadowoing Mary, the living Temple where God dwelt in the flesh. Ezekial told us that, once the Lord had entered by the door of the Temple, no one else would enter by it, and the door would be shut. The door is, of course, Mary's womb

But why presume that Ezekiel's prohecy refers to Mary's womb? The Temple is the place of god's presence, which Jesus made a clear path to by his death, not his birth. The book of Hebrews tells us this, as does the veil to the holy of Holies being torn at the time of his death.

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Ezekiel's prophecy (chapter 44:1-3). We understand the Temple to be a type or foreshadowoing Mary, the living Temple where God dwelt in the flesh. Ezekial told us that, once the Lord had entered by the door of the Temple, no one else would enter by it, and the door would be shut. The door is, of course, Mary's womb

Why "of course", Josephine? Whilst I don't disagree that typological interpretation is an important part of how the Church has approached Scripture, to apply Ezekiel's temple vision seems eccentric, to say the least. After all, Jesus didn't just go into Mary's womb - he came out of it too. And I hardly think Ezekiel would have had anything other in mind than Jerusalem when he prophesied. This really does require doing a lot of damage to the words of the propheet for it to work (frankly, if it can mean that, it can mean anything - this is about as convincing as those poeple who "interpret" the new testament as a code for some other set of events), and sits very badly with the already cited part of Tradition in the letter to the Hebrews.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 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 Jeff Featherstone:
Personally I find it doubful that an ambiguity that exisated in Hebrew would be replicated via Aramaic into everyday Greek.

Why doubtful?

That sort of thing happens all the time when people write in, or translate into, a foreign language.

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

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

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

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which word was used by the translators of the LXX to translate the Hebrew word into Greek? adelphos? No doubt. Hence importing the ambiguity of the Hebrew word into the Greek (if it didn't already have its own measure of ambiguity, which I rather doubt), or at least the Greek as used by Greek-speaking Jews. Like the ones who wrote the gospels, for instance.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Featherstone:
Personally I find it doubful that an ambiguity that exisated in Hebrew would be replicated via Aramaic into everyday Greek.

Why doubtful?

That sort of thing happens all the time when people write in, or translate into, a foreign language.

What I mean is that words in each language have their own ambiguities and it can be very difficult to find a word which means the same, including the same ambiguities, in not just two languages but in this case three!

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 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 Jeff Featherstone:
What I mean is that words in each language have their own ambiguities and it can be very difficult to find a word which means the same, including the same ambiguities, in not just two languages but in this case three!

This is far truer of abstract meanings of nouns than concrete ones. As far as I know, "Brother" has roughly the same slop in English that "Bruder" has in German or "frere" in French.

And as I pointed out above, the LXX imposed a lot of Hebrew semantics on certain Greek words in the community that used it.

Finally it's also quite likely that the townspeople who said "Are not his brothers James (etc)" said it in Aramaic, and it was recorded in Greek.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Why "of course", Josephine? Whilst I don't disagree that typological interpretation is an important part of how the Church has approached Scripture, to apply Ezekiel's temple vision seems eccentric, to say the least.

Perhaps it is, but if so, it is a hoary and venerable Orthodox eccentricity.

The notion that God was in Mary's womb is one that fills us with wonder and awe. There is an icon called "More Spacious than the Heavens." It shows Mary standing at prayer, with a circle over her belly, and in that circle the Lord Christ is standing, surrounded by stars. She contained in her womb him who could not be contained by all the heavens.

For nine months, God lived in her womb. It's mind-boggling. What is a temple other than the dwelling place of a god? God in her womb certainly justifies calling her the Living Temple, which we do.

We also see her in the burning bush: as the bush held the fire of God's presence, and was not consumed, so she held God in her body, and was not consumed by his presence.

Likewise, she is Jacob's ladder, and the jar that held the manna.

We know that's not what the original writers were thinking of when they wrote. But then, Moses wasn't thinking of baptism when he wrote about Noah and the ark, or about the crossing of the Red Sea.

--------------------
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
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
josephine,
These are lovely images. I like them a lot.

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

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 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