The Final Proof: Mary had several children.....

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Happy Lutheran said:
What is the importance to the Orthodox that she stayed ever virgin?
Dedication to being set apart to fulfill her role as the Mother of God.

Would you use a Communion chalice for anything other than Communion?
 
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Minnesota eh
Alveus Lacuna said:
Happy Lutheran said:
Honest question:

What is the importance to the Orthodox that she stayed ever virgin?

Personally, I think it's important to recognize her as one of the great saints of Christian/Jewish history, but her sex life (after the birth of Christ) is utterly unimportant. Maybe I have this opinion because I'm missing something?
Honest Question:

What is the importance to the Lutherans that she was a virgin when Christ was born? It seems utterly unimportant.
Isaiah 7:14
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Happy Lutheran said:
Honest question:

What is the importance to the Orthodox that she stayed ever virgin?

Personally, I think it's important to recognize her as one of the great saints of Christian/Jewish history, but her sex life (after the birth of Christ) is utterly unimportant. Maybe I have this opinion because I'm missing something?
In the same sense the chalice used for the Eucharist will never be used as a beer mug.
 

Apostolos

High Elder
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
954
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
NE Attica, Greece
Leaving aside scripture, Orthodox hymnography, Church dogmas and doctrines for a moment, do you really believe freddief that Joseph after the dream he had with the angel appearing and explaining to him, that the child, his pregnant young-bride-to-be, carried in her womb, was the Messiah conceived miracuously by the Holy Spirit, and after the second dream he had with the angel advising him (or rather instructing him) to take the young mother and her newborn child and flee to Egypt to avoid persecution and death, the same pious, first century God-fearing Jew, would erase all that, move on and sleep with the woman who gave birth to God?
You are thinking like a 21st century westerner with no sense of awe or fear, before the Sanctity and Holiness of God.
No pious first century Jew, with a basic knowledge of holy scripture, who knew what had happened to Uzzah when he touched the ark of the covenant-which was nothing more than a bier containing tablets made of stone-would have EVER touched that woman who was the living ark and contained GOD HIMSELF.
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
Happy Lutheran said:
Alveus Lacuna said:
Happy Lutheran said:
Honest question:

What is the importance to the Orthodox that she stayed ever virgin?

Personally, I think it's important to recognize her as one of the great saints of Christian/Jewish history, but her sex life (after the birth of Christ) is utterly unimportant. Maybe I have this opinion because I'm missing something?
Honest Question:

What is the importance to the Lutherans that she was a virgin when Christ was born? It seems utterly unimportant.
Isaiah 7:14
LOL.

That means maiden and not virgin, according to that Masoretic text that Luther so loved. A young lady. Next.

BTW, Luther seemed to think that her ever-virginity was utterly important, but whatever.

"When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." Luther, Church Father of the Lutherans
 
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Minnesota eh
Yawn ::)

Feel free to read Isaiah 7:14 in Luther's own translation.

Can't ask an honest question around here. I also never said she wasn't. Just asked why it's so important to Orthodox. Thanks to the others who gave generous non condescending replies.
 

Eastern Mind

High Elder
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
721
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apostolos said:
Leaving aside scripture, Orthodox hymnography, Church dogmas and doctrines for a moment, do you really believe freddief that Joseph after the dream he had with the angel appearing and explaining to him, that the child, his pregnant young-bride-to-be, carried in her womb, was the Messiah conceived miracuously by the Holy Spirit, and after the second dream he had with the angel advising him (or rather instructing him) to take the young mother and her newborn child and flee to Egypt to avoid persecution and death, the same pious, first century God-fearing Jew, would erase all that, move on and sleep with the woman who gave birth to God?
You are thinking like a 21st century westerner with no sense of awe or fear, before the Sanctity and Holiness of God.
No pious first century Jew, with a basic knowledge of holy scripture, who knew what had happened to Uzzah when he touched the ark of the covenant-which was nothing more than a bier containing tablets made of stone-would have EVER touched that woman who was the living ark and contained GOD HIMSELF.
I wish I could like this (bold mine).
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Eastern Mind said:
Apostolos said:
Leaving aside scripture, Orthodox hymnography, Church dogmas and doctrines for a moment, do you really believe freddief that Joseph after the dream he had with the angel appearing and explaining to him, that the child, his pregnant young-bride-to-be, carried in her womb, was the Messiah conceived miracuously by the Holy Spirit, and after the second dream he had with the angel advising him (or rather instructing him) to take the young mother and her newborn child and flee to Egypt to avoid persecution and death, the same pious, first century God-fearing Jew, would erase all that, move on and sleep with the woman who gave birth to God?
You are thinking like a 21st century westerner with no sense of awe or fear, before the Sanctity and Holiness of God.
No pious first century Jew, with a basic knowledge of holy scripture, who knew what had happened to Uzzah when he touched the ark of the covenant-which was nothing more than a bier containing tablets made of stone-would have EVER touched that woman who was the living ark and contained GOD HIMSELF.
I wish I could like this (bold mine).
I don't. It is radically anti-Christian. We touch the Theotokos and Christ. GOD HIMSELF was touched by many during His life on earth as was His mother (do you really think Mary was never touched by anyone after giving birth to Jesus?). And GOD HIMSELF has been consumed, not to speak of touched, by untold numbers since.

I guess all those Apostles weren't pious Jews.
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
Clemente said:
Finally, your line of questioning begs the question of your own epistemology. Why should we trust your (or my) private interpretation?
Google alerts let me know someone tried using a big word here.

There are no private interpretations, not in the sense you mean. Really what is begged here is your own epistemological prejudices.

Such are always begged. We cannot be free from that which first allows us access to understanding. 
That is perspicuous and begs being nothing more and nothingness. 

To think Being itself explicitly requires disregarding Being to the extent that it is only grounded and interpreted in terms of beings and for beings as their ground, as in all metaphysics.

Martin Heidegger
 

Apostolos

High Elder
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
954
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
NE Attica, Greece
orthonorm said:
Eastern Mind said:
Apostolos said:
Leaving aside scripture, Orthodox hymnography, Church dogmas and doctrines for a moment, do you really believe freddief that Joseph after the dream he had with the angel appearing and explaining to him, that the child, his pregnant young-bride-to-be, carried in her womb, was the Messiah conceived miracuously by the Holy Spirit, and after the second dream he had with the angel advising him (or rather instructing him) to take the young mother and her newborn child and flee to Egypt to avoid persecution and death, the same pious, first century God-fearing Jew, would erase all that, move on and sleep with the woman who gave birth to God?
You are thinking like a 21st century westerner with no sense of awe or fear, before the Sanctity and Holiness of God.
No pious first century Jew, with a basic knowledge of holy scripture, who knew what had happened to Uzzah when he touched the ark of the covenant-which was nothing more than a bier containing tablets made of stone-would have EVER touched that woman who was the living ark and contained GOD HIMSELF.
I wish I could like this (bold mine).
I don't. It is radically anti-Christian. We touch the Theotokos and Christ. GOD HIMSELF was touched by many during His life on earth as was His mother (do you really think Mary was never touched by anyone after giving birth to Jesus?). And GOD HIMSELF has been consumed, not to speak of touched, by untold numbers since.

I guess all those Apostles weren't pious Jews.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, English is not my native language, I did not mean the simple touch, I meant, "touch"
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apostolos said:
orthonorm said:
Eastern Mind said:
Apostolos said:
Leaving aside scripture, Orthodox hymnography, Church dogmas and doctrines for a moment, do you really believe freddief that Joseph after the dream he had with the angel appearing and explaining to him, that the child, his pregnant young-bride-to-be, carried in her womb, was the Messiah conceived miracuously by the Holy Spirit, and after the second dream he had with the angel advising him (or rather instructing him) to take the young mother and her newborn child and flee to Egypt to avoid persecution and death, the same pious, first century God-fearing Jew, would erase all that, move on and sleep with the woman who gave birth to God?
You are thinking like a 21st century westerner with no sense of awe or fear, before the Sanctity and Holiness of God.
No pious first century Jew, with a basic knowledge of holy scripture, who knew what had happened to Uzzah when he touched the ark of the covenant-which was nothing more than a bier containing tablets made of stone-would have EVER touched that woman who was the living ark and contained GOD HIMSELF.
I wish I could like this (bold mine).
I don't. It is radically anti-Christian. We touch the Theotokos and Christ. GOD HIMSELF was touched by many during His life on earth as was His mother (do you really think Mary was never touched by anyone after giving birth to Jesus?). And GOD HIMSELF has been consumed, not to speak of touched, by untold numbers since.

I guess all those Apostles weren't pious Jews.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, English is not my native language, I did not mean the simple touch, I meant, "touch"
What does "touch" mean? I am native American speaker and I am only familiar with such use by those who are rather uptight about sex or by many more who are uptight talking about sex to their kids.

So let's be clear.

Do you mean touch sexually?

If so, what would the account of Uzzah add to differentiate how to touch Mary? Unless my Bible is more PG than I thought . . .
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Clemente said:
orthonorm said:
Clemente said:
Finally, your line of questioning begs the question of your own epistemology. Why should we trust your (or my) private interpretation?
Google alerts let me know someone tried using a big word here.

There are no private interpretations, not in the sense you mean. Really what is begged here is your own epistemological prejudices.

Such are always begged. We cannot be free from that which first allows us access to understanding.  
That is perspicuous and begs being nothing more and nothingness.  

To think Being itself explicitly requires disregarding Being to the extent that it is only grounded and interpreted in terms of beings and for beings as their ground, as in all metaphysics.

Martin Heidegger
I hope you were chuckling along with the Nazi as you read this when you googled it. In any case, it reminds me of a text I haven't thought about in a while. Thanks.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
Armchair Theologian said:
Eastern Mind said:
Pope Siricius I: You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the Flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord's body, chat court of the eternal King (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
I'm curious, in what way would the 'seed' of natural sexual intercourse with one's spouse be considered a 'contamination'?

Do not the scriptures teach that the marriage bed is undefiled? (Hebrews 13:4)
The marriage bed is indeed undefiled, but, like the OT Ark which contained the tablets of the Law, so sacred that touching it meant instant death, how much holier is the true Ark, the woman whose womb bore God Himself? Some food for thought:

Now, St Joseph was a good Jew, he would have been brought up with a strong sense of the sacred. He would have been raised knowing the stories in scripture of people touching the Ark of the Covenant and suffering instant death. He would have also known that only the high priest dared enter the Holy of Holies of the Temple to offer the yearly sacrifice to the presence of God who "dwelt there". Undoubtedly at some stage St Joseph would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to realise the true meaning behind these images and stories from scripture, as well as the temple rituals.

Once the meaning of these became clear to him, how, then, could Joseph possibly consider marital relations with this woman, the living Tabernacle, the new Ark, the Holy of Holies, knowing that she has given birth to the Son of God? Not that sex is bad, evil or wrong between married couples, just as eating and cooking meat are not bad, evil, or wrong in themselves, but when put into service to God in the Temple, be it sacrificial animals, or, in the case of Mary who was dedicated to the Temple as a child, they became holy, and only the high priests could participate in the sacrifice. Christ Himself is the great and eternal High Priest, the "prince who eats bread before the Lord" (Ezekiel 44). Good man that he was, St Joseph would most likely have regarded himself as utterly unworthy to even be in the presence of such a treasure blessed and wholly sanctified by God, let alone consider sleeping with her.
You're making 3 assumptions.

1, That Mary and Joseph understood, from the beginning, the fullness of who and what Jesus Christ is, the incarnate God. It's possible all they understood is that the child to be born of Mary was the Messiah.

2, That after Christ had left the womb of His virgin Mother, it continued to be the 'ark of the covenant'. To the contrary, a thing can only be a temple of God so long as God continues to live in it. Once God has left, it ceases to be His temple.

3, That Mary was the antitype of the Ark of the Covenant, but the Ark does not represent such as 'contains' God, but represents His presence among men, Foreshadowing Christ and His own body which was formed for Him of the Virgin, not the Virgin herself. Perhaps the Ark foreshadowed His body, just as the Temple seems to have in some way (John 2 19-21).
 

Clemente

Elder
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
466
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
Clemente said:
orthonorm said:
Clemente said:
Finally, your line of questioning begs the question of your own epistemology. Why should we trust your (or my) private interpretation?
Google alerts let me know someone tried using a big word here.

There are no private interpretations, not in the sense you mean. Really what is begged here is your own epistemological prejudices.

Such are always begged. We cannot be free from that which first allows us access to understanding.  
That is perspicuous and begs being nothing more and nothingness.  

To think Being itself explicitly requires disregarding Being to the extent that it is only grounded and interpreted in terms of beings and for beings as their ground, as in all metaphysics.

Martin Heidegger
I hope you were chuckling along with the Nazi as you read this when you googled it. In any case, it reminds me of a text I haven't thought about in a while. Thanks.
Which text. Mein Kampf?

(Ok, now I am chuckling. Thanks).
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Armchair Theologian said:
1, That Mary and Joseph understood, from the beginning, the fullness of who and what Jesus Christ is, the incarnate God. It's possible all they understood is that the child to be born of Mary was the Messiah.
Lk 1, 35
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Happy Lutheran said:
Honest question:

What is the importance to the Orthodox that she stayed ever virgin?
Because its truth and truth is what we seek.  Not someone's personal ideas of what could have been.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I hear the argument the early Church got this and that wrong, messed up here, became corrupt there, but what they don't realize is if this is true, everything which came after is even more so, especially over a thousand years later.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'd like to ask the question to those who believe that Mary did have other children.  Why?  What does that mean to YOUR belief?  Other than polemics and the desire to prove the Orthodox Church is wrong, what does it mean to YOUR belief that Mary in fact had other children?
 

Punch

Taxiarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
5,799
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
59
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
choy said:
I'd like to ask the question to those who believe that Mary did have other children.  Why?  What does that mean to YOUR belief?  Other than polemics and the desire to prove the Orthodox Church is wrong, what does it mean to YOUR belief that Mary in fact had other children?
It is what I have always believed, or at least believed possible.  I do not profess it because the Church does not profess it.  Likewise, I do not argue the point since it is one of the more stupid arguments.  Whether or not she had other Children has absolutely no bearing on my faith (although it could gain me an anathema if I say that she did).  I believe that she was a virgin at conception.  After that, I really do not care.  I guess if I was heavy into Mary worship such insignificant points would weigh heavy on me.  But I am not.  I revere her as Mother of God, and find no need to go farther than that.  In fact, isn't Mother of God about as high and far as one can go?  As to those that believe the other way, I really have not seen where their belief that she remained ever virgin did anything for their faith.  As I have written many times on this forum, I have seen more people live Christlike lives outside of the Church than I have inside.  Maybe it is because they spend more time trying to follow the commands of Christ instead of looking for unhewn mountains and locked gates and arguing if cousins are brothers and the like.

So, I think that your question is rather misguided, as is your assumption that those who believe this way are simply after polemics or any desire to prove the Church wrong.  I have no such desire because I really couldn't give a rodent's posterior about the issue.  There are many things that the Orthodox Church professes that I do not believe.  However, like the father of the demoniac in the Scripture,  my answer to these things is "I believe, Lord help my unbelief".  Perhaps one day He will give me the Grace to understand what I do not believe and the Faith to accept it.  If He does not, I do not worry since it must not really have been that big of a deal.  As to those that start stupid threads like this (as is any "final proof" idiocy), I cannot speak for them.  Perhaps you should have rephrased your question as ". . . to those that start stupid threads like this; why?" 
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Punch said:
choy said:
I'd like to ask the question to those who believe that Mary did have other children.  Why?  What does that mean to YOUR belief?  Other than polemics and the desire to prove the Orthodox Church is wrong, what does it mean to YOUR belief that Mary in fact had other children?
It is what I have always believed, or at least believed possible.  I do not profess it because the Church does not profess it.  Likewise, I do not argue the point since it is one of the more stupid arguments.  Whether or not she had other Children has absolutely no bearing on my faith (although it could gain me an anathema if I say that she did).  I believe that she was a virgin at conception.  After that, I really do not care.  I guess if I was heavy into Mary worship such insignificant points would weigh heavy on me.  But I am not.  I revere her as Mother of God, and find no need to go farther than that.  In fact, isn't Mother of God about as high and far as one can go?  As to those that believe the other way, I really have not seen where their belief that she remained ever virgin did anything for their faith.  As I have written many times on this forum, I have seen more people live Christlike lives outside of the Church than I have inside.  Maybe it is because they spend more time trying to follow the commands of Christ instead of looking for unhewn mountains and locked gates and arguing if cousins are brothers and the like.

So, I think that your question is rather misguided, as is your assumption that those who believe this way are simply after polemics or any desire to prove the Church wrong.  I have no such desire because I really couldn't give a rodent's posterior about the issue.  There are many things that the Orthodox Church professes that I do not believe.  However, like the father of the demoniac in the Scripture,  my answer to these things is "I believe, Lord help my unbelief".  Perhaps one day He will give me the Grace to understand what I do not believe and the Faith to accept it.  If He does not, I do not worry since it must not really have been that big of a deal.  As to those that start stupid threads like this (as is any "final proof" idiocy), I cannot speak for them.  Perhaps you should have rephrased your question as ". . . to those that start stupid threads like this; why?" 
If it is not polemics, why go to an Orthodox board and insist on it?
 
Top