Thread: Kerygmania: Did Joseph "know" Mary? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000364
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
I've just come down from the Virgin Mary thread.
The passage is Matthew's gospel, chapter 1, v 25,
"And (Joseph) knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son;and he called his name Jesus." AV
"but (Joseph) had no intercourse with her until her son was born. And he named the child Jesus." REB
This word "till/until" has a plain meaning in English. Afterwards things would be different, and Mary and Joseph would have had sex. The AV and the REB are very similar in their translations, despite the hundreds of years between them.
Is there any agreement among Greek scholars about what this means in Greek? Would there be an alternative translation?
[ 30. March 2004, 12:34: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Here is the above thread on the Virgin Mary, I hope
Virgin Mary
Ye-e-esss! It worked! Thank you, preview post.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
"And lo, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
At which point He ceases to be with us, right?
Reader Alexis
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
At which point he will be with us in a different way.
bb
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
Well for what is worth I think history continues to repeat itself on this subject, I've kept an open mind thus far but have now finaly rationalised my opinion.
Rather than listen to dogma and "religianity", I have to conclude from reading the bible (the inspired word of God), that Mary did not remain a virgin, nor did she ascend bodily into heaven after death(or before for matter of clarity), and those organisations who elevate her status detract from rather than add to the view of our lord, and are guilty of odolatry, and false witness.
Now saying that, I believe that despite people being indoctrinated over the centuries, or maybe because of that fact, God will look favourably on people with sincere hearts and happily forgive a few foibles like Maryism, and I have no problem accepting but at times disagreeing with other peoples opinions, on the basis that I know not what I know but know what I believe.
Ultimately it will be down to God to judge and not a simple minion like me.
If anyone wants to flame me feel free.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
At which point he will be with us in a different way.
bb
that's exactly what I'm wondering and asking; if this is a "boundary word" then what is the territory beyond the boundary? and how does it affect the future territory?
Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on
:
Reader Alexis,
a) until in the sentence regarding Joseph is the wording of the gospel writer, whereas the other until is Jesus' reported words. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that the two people would have used the words in precisely the same way even if the latter is reported speech.
b) c'mon, hundreds words have more than one meaning. Those two instances are hardly next door sentences which might imply they were to be translated the same. e.g. the grass is 'green', I am 'green' with envy; 'however' - on the other hand, 'however' - no matter how much... And it's the same in Greek, (shakes old grey matter somewhat optimistically ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) e.g. ex - from, or, out of. I definitely remember having long discussions with my NT Greek tutor about how to translate different prepositions etc and he was the editor of the Jerusalem Bible (i.e. odds are he was pro Mary but still would admit to words translating differently and it not helping his case in this instance) (Tangent - mind you, he was so brainy I'm sure he had a much better explanation).
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on
:
Gosh, I_am_not_Job, either we were both taught greek by Fr Henry or there were two editors of the JB!
Priest:
For many Christians (not just RC and Orthodox) things like the continued virginity of Mary are not only matters of biblical exegesis but also of church traditions, as the posts on the purg thread made clear. They are early, strong and authoritative traditions - not some late, nutty innovation by anti-sex Catholics. They are things passed down from each generation of Christians to the next, claiming to originate from the apostles.
Whether one agrees with the doctrine or not (which personally I don't) I suggest a little more respect towards it and its contemporary adherents. You and I are in the minority, you know!
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Reader Alexis,
b) c'mon, hundreds words have more than one meaning.
True. But how will you decide which meaning to use where? Your presuppositions? That's fine but then don't claim you are getting your theology from the Bible; in fact you are reading it into the Bible.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
Whether one agrees with the doctrine or not (which personally I don't) I suggest a little more respect towards it and its contemporary adherents. You and I are in the minority, you know!
Yes Sean, re-reading my post I realise it was a little too vitriolic, I appologise to anyone for offense caused, I should know by now never to post anything too serious whilst ill.
Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on
:
Sean D,
Yep, Father Henry. Saw you DOB so am guessing you were the year below me. Which college?
Reader Alexis,
No, not my presuppositions, but the usual way in which one translates things - logic, context, previous use in passage and else where in the work, tradition etc. You seem just to be sticking to the last one which you have the right to do so, but you could empathize a little as to why from reading the biblical account lots of people are little sceptical as to how perfect Mary is in the traditional RC and Orthodox traditions. Tradition and scripture may have developed together, but the gospels were written pretty close to the time and Jesus' rebukes of Mary, her misunderstanding of who he was (at first) etc are pretty blatently represented.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Defining and/or translating prepositions is notoriously difficult. That's why I have not contributed to this thread up until now. It almost takes a native speaker to get the prepositions right all the time.
The Oxford English Dictionary has a huge number of definitions of the English preposition 'of'. I have been told there are a hundred and twenty-eight.
I think that trying to decide the exact meaning of the Greek preposition εωσ is a waste of time. You'll never know whether you're right.
Moo
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
I think another problem with trying to define the semantics of an individual word is the danger of ignoring the consequences of contextual reference.
I.e. If Mary did not know Joseph "until" the birth of Jesus but we later hear of Jesus's brothers and sisters then contextually we may presume that "until" meant after the birth.
Posted by Marina (# 343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
I think another problem with trying to define the semantics of an individual word is the danger of ignoring the consequences of contextual reference.
I.e. If Mary did not know Joseph "until" the birth of Jesus but we later hear of Jesus's brothers and sisters then contextually we may presume that "until" meant after the birth.
That's if the word "eos" or in this case in the negative "ouk eos" actually means 'until'. Most evidence suggest it doesn't (in the sense that English is used).
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Marina,
I still haven't got the hang of the difference of the meanings.
"Until" in English is a word that stops action at the point it's used ina sentence. So is "before". Neither define what happens "after" the previous action or non-action.
So does "ews" define what happens after? (Thanks, Moo for the greek script.)
Priest said,
quote:
I think another problem with trying to define the semantics of an individual word is the danger of ignoring the consequences of contextual reference.
I.e. If Mary did not know Joseph "until" the birth of Jesus but we later hear of Jesus's brothers and sisters then contextually we may presume that "until" meant after the birth.
and I agree,but then we get into whether people agree on what "brothers and sisters" means. I'm used to the idea of "sister-cousins" and "brother-cousins" in Nepali culture, but my husband thinks there probably is a special word for them that he can't remember.
So how do we distinguish between Jesus' brothers and sisters and his cousins?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
This is the second thread in recent times to suggest that the Bible shows a) that Mary did not remain a virgin and b) she did not ascend into heaven bodily. On both threads all the discussion has centred around a). What about b)?
I can't remember the Bible saying anything about the death of Mary, which means she could have died of old age, been horribly martyred, assumed into heaven, or eaten by a giant hamster without a single word of scripture being contradicted. So why do people reject the assumption, as I know many do?
Posted by da_Musicman (# 1018) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I can't remember the Bible saying anything about the death of Mary, which means she could have died of old age, been horribly martyred, assumed into heaven, or eaten by a giant hamster without a single word of scripture being contradicted. So why do people reject the assumption, as I know many do?
I think many people reject the idea as a simple kick back against putting Mary on a pedestal.If it is accepted that she ascended to heaven then it has to be accepted she was more special than us. It seems to me that those who don't revere Mary as much as the RC's wish or do her down to some extent in a way to redress the balance. I personally had never thought about how she got to heaven. I think she probably died a natural death but I have no reason for that other than that is the usual way it goes with people.
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on
:
The whole thing with the Assumption is that Mary did in fact die a natural death. But then was taken into heaven. Whether that involved resurrection or not, I don't know. Someone more up on the dogma might be able to inform us how it runs... It's something along the lines of the idea that she's a prototype of us, of what will happen to us, just as our Lord is the forerunner, the first risen from the dead, etc.
Does it help to throw the spanner in the works: that John Calvin always held to the perpetual virginity of the BVM?
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I can't remember the Bible saying anything about the death of Mary, which means she could have died of old age, been horribly martyred, assumed into heaven, or eaten by a giant hamster without a single word of scripture being contradicted. So why do people reject the assumption, as I know many do?
For me the question is more, given the above, why would anyone accept the accumption? I would have thought that it would have been worth noting somewhere.
I can't help but wonder if it was just a story put about to stop people from trying to rob her grave. "Hey, I've got the thigh bone of God's mummy! It is bound to have miraculous powers."
bb
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Does it help to throw the spanner in the works: that John Calvin always held to the perpetual virginity of the BVM?
I never knew that Calvin was an eyewitness to the Incarnation. Fancy that.
Posted by Marina (# 343) on
:
Sorry to be picky (especially after complaining recently about nitpickers on the Forum) ... but if you are not discussing Biblical Greek/exegesis etc and do turn to a discussion of the "assumption" ... well shouldn't it be in the thread on the Virgin Mary that is already open in Purgatory?
(BTW The Orthodox do not have the Assumption as a doctrine, on the 15th August they celebrate the Dormition (i.e. Falling Asleep) of the Theotokos (lit. God bearer, which is the title given to Mary by the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus. They believe that she did die. Liturgical texts and apocryphal texts point to her being taken into heaven three days after her death, but this is not a doctrine of the Orthodox Church)
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marina:
if you are not discussing Biblical Greek/exegesis etc and do turn to a discussion of the "assumption" ... well shouldn't it be in the thread on the Virgin Mary that is already open in Purgatory?
Ah, but it did start with a Bible passage, and no doubt we will get back to it in some distant time in the future.
bb
Posted by Marina (# 343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
quote:
Originally posted by Marina:
if you are not discussing Biblical Greek/exegesis etc and do turn to a discussion of the "assumption" ... well shouldn't it be in the thread on the Virgin Mary that is already open in Purgatory?
Ah, but it did start with a Bible passage, and no doubt we will get back to it in some distant time in the future.
bb
Not quite - It was a spin off from a thread already running in Purgatory - so perhaps it should go back from whence it came
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Isn't Fr. Wansborough editor of the NJB, and not the JB? Or did he do both?
Thurible
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
For me the question is more, given the above, why would anyone accept the accumption? I would have thought that it would have been worth noting somewhere.
It *was* noted "somewhere." Just not in the Holy Scriptures.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
For me the question is more, given the above, why would anyone accept the accumption? I would have thought that it would have been worth noting somewhere.
It *was* noted "somewhere." Just not in the Holy Scriptures.
When was this belief first recorded? Hmm.. actually, don't we have a thread somewhere discussing the Assumption?
Sieg
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
When was this belief first recorded?
I'd guess in the Protoevangelium of James. Why?
Reader Alexis
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
I thought it was Pope Boniface VIII, but I'm no expert on papal edict.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
I thought it was Pope Boniface VIII.
Pope Boniface VIII was a 13th century pope; the Protoevanvelium dates from the 2nd century.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
That's "Protoevangelium," of course. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Astro (# 84) on
:
I hope that Mary and Joseph did have sex and have it regularly, afterall sex should be an important part of marriage, and feel that if they didn't then they were missing out on something important and their relationship was somewhat less than it could have been.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
Astro, sex is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is a gift that is meant to build up and strengthen the unity of the husband and wife.
If the husband and wife are already perfect in unity, then there is no need for it. The relationship between husband and wife in that case is not in any way diminished by their lack of sexual relations. It is already perfect and complete, amd lacks nothing.
Most couples, of course, find their love and unity strengthened by sexual relations. But Mary and Joseph were hardly "most couples."
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on
:
Josphine wrote:
quote:
Most couples, of course, find their love and unity strengthened by sexual relations. But Mary and Joseph were hardly "most couples."
Why not? (And this is a serious question - honestly)
Tubbs
Posted by homebild (# 1543) on
:
Hmmm...
Since I did not 'know' my wife until after we were married, this means my children have virgins for parents....
I get it now!
Goody!
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
Josphine wrote:
quote:
Mary and Joseph were hardly "most couples."
Why not? (And this is a serious question - honestly)
Well, to start with, Mary and Joseph both chatted with angels, received explicit instructions from God, and were reliable enough to be entrusted with the care of the Infant God himself, and were miraculously chosen for that task. That makes them quite unlike most folks, and would therefore make them, as a couple, quite unlike most couples.
And then there's the fact that Mary had God in her womb for 9 months. It's clear from Isaiah that being touched with a coal from the altar in Heaven had a pretty dramatic effect on Isaiah -- it would seem safe to assume that having God in your womb for nine months would have an even more dramatic effect. That alone makes her a very unusual woman, and one would expect that a couple half of which was such an unusual woman would therefore be an unusual couple -- unlike most couples in significant ways.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
But, Josephine, Mary did not just have God in her womb, she had a real, live, truly human, baby boy. I bet she was more aware of that than the "godliness' of the unborn. And then, giving birth, again, a very human experience.
God chose Mary and Joseph, IMO, because they were truly, wholly, absolutely, really, ordinary human beings. You wouldn't want Jesus to be brought up by people who weren't normal and ordinary, would you?
I think it would be imputing cruelty to God to expect God to not allow Mary and Joseph to have sexual knowledge of each other.
The experience of the Divine makes us more human - and since God made us sexual beings, then maybe Mary and Joseph got more out of sex than the rest of us.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
But, Josephine, Mary did not just have God in her womb, she had a real, live, truly human, baby boy.
So?
quote:
God chose Mary and Joseph, IMO, because they were truly, wholly, absolutely, really, ordinary human beings.
Hmmm. Let's see. Your opinion versus that of all the Fathers and even most of the Reformers. Hmmm. Nope, I'm sorry, I have to go with Tradition here.
quote:
You wouldn't want Jesus to be brought up by people who weren't normal and ordinary, would you?
Why wouldn't I?
quote:
I think it would be imputing cruelty to God to expect God to not allow Mary and Joseph to have sexual knowledge of each other.
Why? This places waaaay too much importance on sex. Sorta like our culture. Hmmm. Our oversexed culture (in which sex is used to sell everything from motorcycles to toothpaste) versus 2000 years of Orthodox tradition. Hmmmm.
Bzzt. Sorry. No contest.
Reader Alexis
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Mousethief wrote
Why? This places waaaay too much importance on sex. Sorta like our culture.
No, I didn't say it was the most important thing about their marriage or their lives, or their dental hygiene, just that it is a basic part of their marriage and I don't think God would want to deprive them of it.
[tidied up quotes]
[ 06. April 2003, 14:51: Message edited by: babybear ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Daisymay, I think we will have to agree to disagree. You place far more importance on both sex and your own opinion for me to agree with you.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
I place far too much importance on sex and Daisymae's opinion, to agree with you, RA.
There are reasons why Joseph is plainly spoken of as not knowing her until she had the Baby. Like, reaffirmation that Jesus was/is God's singular Son perhaps.
The community around Jesus knew his brothers and sisters. Quit bending over backwards and stacking marbles with your tongue in an effort to get yourself into a position where you can squint at the Scriptures and say "No, He had no siblings, those are His cousins!"
If the God Who Spoke can start a life incarnate from single-cell-size, and stay cooped up in a uterus for 9 months, and poop and burp and dribble and wriggle, little swaddled tadpole, bless His heart!...
If He can stoop to handle and comfort and heal infected diseased possessed people...
Then why is it somehow shameful to think that His mother was a real woman with real needs and desires, a woman who was a good Jewish wife 2,000 years ago?
How would that be dishonoring her? Is married sexual intercourse/the flesh/life on Earth somehow inherently dirty and evil?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
The community around Jesus knew his brothers and sisters. Quit bending over backwards and stacking marbles with your tongue in an effort to get yourself into a position where you can squint at the Scriptures and say "No, He had no siblings, those are His cousins!"
The answer to the question of whether αδελφο&iota meant simply 'brothers' as we use the word, or also included 'cousins' requires expert knowledge of ancient Hebrew relationship terms.
I don't have that knowledge and I suspect no one else here does either. The meaning of 'brother' in English is irrelevant. I do know that there are cultures where the mother and all her sisters are called 'mother'. The father's sisters are called 'aunt'. I don't know what these cultures mean by 'brother'.
The way to answer the question is to see whether any research has been done on ancient Hebrew relationship terms. Flat assertions don't cut it.
Moo
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Then why is it somehow shameful to think that His mother was a real woman with real needs and desires, a woman who was a good Jewish wife 2,000 years ago?
How would that be dishonoring her? Is married sexual intercourse/the flesh/life on Earth somehow inherently dirty and evil?
This is Bulverism. You have decided that what I believe is false, and are attempting to explain why I believe it.
I don't believe she was a perpetual virgin for any of the straw-man reasons you give. I believe it because the Church has always taught it, and the "objections" to it are all quite modern.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Apologies for the double post.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The answer to the question of whether αδελφοι meant simply 'brothers' as we use the word, or also included 'cousins' requires expert knowledge of ancient Hebrew relationship terms.
Do you mean 'Greek'? αδελφοι is a Greek word, not a Hebrew one.
Reader Alexis
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on
:
But I thought Orthodox tradition says that Joseph was older, had been married before and the references to Jesus' brothers and sisters were actually Joseph's children and thusly Jesus' half-siblings. At least that's what my priest says.
Here's a weblink that reflects that view:
Orthodox answer
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
But I thought Orthodox tradition says that Joseph was older, had been married before and the references to Jesus' brothers and sisters were actually Joseph's children and thusly Jesus' half-siblings.
Spot on. It's the RCC who call them cousins.
Reader Alexis
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Do you mean 'Greek'? αδελφοι is a Greek word, not a Hebrew one.
I can't really say what Moo meant, but the gospels were written in greek relating conversations that would have originally been in Aramaic. Therefore, the questions "what Aramaic word is the most likely original that was translated αδελφοι?" and "how would Aramaic speakers have understood that word - as modern english 'brother', 'half-brother', 'cousin' or something else?" become relevant.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't really say what Moo meant, but the gospels were written in greek relating conversations that would have originally been in Aramaic. Therefore, the questions "what Aramaic word is the most likely original that was translated αδελφοι?" and "how would Aramaic speakers have understood that word - as modern english 'brother', 'half-brother', 'cousin' or something else?" become relevant.
That's the point I was making, Alan.
The people who said, 'Here are his brothers and sisters.' were speaking of a Jewish relationship system. In order to know what they meant we need to know what the words 'brother' and 'cousin' meant to them. It doesn't make any difference what language they were speaking.
In an earlier post I mentioned a culture where the mother and all of her sisters were called 'mother'. The question here is who was called 'brother' by the Jews of Jesus's time.
Moo
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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.
Mary is handed over by Anna and Joachim, her parents, to serve as a virgin in the temple. She was a levite. What other records of little girls being handed over to the temple to live there as virgins do we have?
Then lots are drawn and Joseph wins Mary as his wife!
James was said to be the son of Joseph the Betrothed and Salome. So he is a half-brother of Jesus? And which James is this?
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 ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
(These ideas are in the Odes of Solomon and the Ascension of Isaiah.) and without destroying her hymen ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(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.
The whole idea of perpetual virginity seems to be close to a massive urban and orbin myth. The more I think about it and read about it, the more I think it's unreal.
I don't see any evidence that Mary and Joseph were not a normal married couple.
Posted by Amanuensis (# 1555) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't really say what Moo meant, but the gospels were written in greek relating conversations that would have originally been in Aramaic. Therefore, the questions "what Aramaic word is the most likely original that was translated αδελφοι?" and "how would Aramaic speakers have understood that word - as modern english 'brother', 'half-brother', 'cousin' or something else?" become relevant.
Although we should probably admit that "brother" is by far and away the most likely translation.
James the brother of Jesus is known from the New Testament and from historical tradition as the leader of the Jewish church in Jerusalem. I wonder (genuinely) what the RC and Orthodox churches make of him?
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanuensis:
James the brother of Jesus is known from the New Testament and from historical tradition as the leader of the Jewish church in Jerusalem. I wonder (genuinely) what the RC and Orthodox churches make of him?
Well I'm sick to the teeth of this, but since you claim to be genuine here I'll answer you.
He's Joseph's son from an earlier marriage. Tradition has it that he went with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus to Egypt.
And if you're at all interested, tradition also has it that John the Beloved was Jesus' nephew, a son of Joseph's daughter Salome.
Daisymay, we told you we didn't think they were your average, run-of-the-mill couple.
Reader Alexis
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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?
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
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?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
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.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Amanuensis (# 1555) on
:
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.
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
[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
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
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]](biggrin.gif)
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
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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?
Posted by homebild (# 1543) on
:
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....
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
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
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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 ).
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
Posted by Astro (# 84) on
:
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????
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
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.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Astro (# 84) on
:
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.
Posted by da_Musicman (# 1018) on
:
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?
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
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.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on
:
Well I cannot see how bringing forth children into the world can be seen as "common usage".
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
[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.
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
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
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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?
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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.
Posted by homebild (# 1543) on
:
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]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by homebild (# 1543) on
:
Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Change? CHANGE? ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by homebild:
Q: How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Change? CHANGE?
What makes you think we use lightbulbs? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
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
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
as exclusive to or tradition.
"our tradition"
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
Very informative, josephine. Thank you. Not that I necessarily agree, but now I understand where you are coming from.
Posted by homebild (# 1543) on
:
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!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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 ]
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Marina (# 343) on
:
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!
Posted by homebild (# 1543) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by homebild (# 1543) on
:
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!
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
[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
Posted by homebild (# 1543) on
:
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]](frown.gif)
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
[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
Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by Marina (# 343) on
:
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"
Posted by Smart Alex (# 1916) on
:
(Albeit from a very firm Orthodox perspective - it is not in any way a "balanced" discussion)
Posted by madkaren (# 1033) on
:
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
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I do not see how a baby could get out of the birth canal if the hymen were unbroken.
Moo
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
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
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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.
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
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
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
(bump)
Posted by Icarus the Happy Coot (# 220) on
:
Thanks Moo, I looked in Purg, Limbo and DH but somehow missed this one!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on
:
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.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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!]](eek.gif)
. If not, then the idea that Mary could not have remained a virgin because of this commandment just doesn't follow.
Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on
:
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?
Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on
:
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?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.)
Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on
:
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?
Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on
:
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.
Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Jeff Featherstone (# 4811) on
:
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!
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
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.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
josephine,
These are lovely images. I like them a lot.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0