Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[LittleLambofJesus]

as I explained: the position that Mary and Joseph married is, due to the breadth of meaning of the Greek words considered on the matter, an extra-Biblical teaching. Ultimately, my argument was an attempt to show that all Churches rely on a tradition for interpretation.

How come?

Reve 16:16 And it together-assembling/sun-hgagen <4863> (5627) them into the place, the being called to Hebrew ar-ma-geddwn

Reve 20:8 and he shall be coming out to deceive the nations, the in the four corners of-the land, the gwg <1136> and the ma-gwg <3098>, to-be-together-assembling/sun-agagein <4863> (5629) them into the battle.................

 

[beamishboy]

(for the second or third time ) I stated that the NT does not explicitly state that Mary and Joseph were married; the Greek term translated as married has several meanings, one of which denotes marriage. In order to interpret the term (or in general, to conclude) that they married, one must rely on a tradition or bias of some sort. Here is what I said:



I did not state that this is the EO position on the matter.


as I explained: the position that Mary and Joseph married is, due to the breadth of meaning of the Greek words considered on the matter, an extra-Biblical teaching. Ultimately, my argument was an attempt to show that all Churches rely on a tradition for interpretation.



again, the point was that some bias or tradition must be relied on to conclude a particular understanding where explicit indication is absent in the Bible.

Dear Thekla,

Is it so hard to say what EO's stand is? I know there is another thread I can look for but I'm unwell (feverish) and don't want to search too much. People in this thread state the positions of their churches quite readily. Can you please say what the EO position is with regard to Mary's marriage?

You did not quote the full arguments in that thread. You argued tooth and nail against a proper marriage. Honestly in all my life, that was the first time I have heard of that which is why I asked MrPolo for the RC position and he gave it to me in a twinkle of the eye.

Naturally, seeing your firm opposition against a proper marriage, I concluded that was the position of your church. Furthermore, in that thread, you did not state the stand of your church or correct me. In another thread, someone said the Protestant Bible did not contain the Epistle of James. I naturally rebutted it immediately. If I had not rebutted him and if at no point have I corrected his erroneous stand and instead argue against why James should NOT be in the Canon, won't an outsider unfamiliar with the Protestant Bible conclude that James is not in our Bible? And can you later say he was just assuming things?

It's the context. Why is it so hard for you to tell me there and then in that thread that the EOs believe Mary was properly married but you were just arguing for the sake of venting your own beliefs? You just fought our statements and brought in all the Greek to confirm your stand and now, you tell me "I did not state that this is the EO position on the matter".

What did you state? You saw how I asked MrPolo for the Catholic position and you saw his speed at replying with a DEFINITE answer.

If it's a position that EO's are not allowed to reveal to others, you can tell me that and I will cease all questions. But in that thread all you did was to fight any statement that she was married and although I stated in many posts that I was surprised at this new thing and I even asked you if the RCs took the same stand but you did not reply. You could have said, "Oh, you are badly mistaken. This is not the EO position but I'm arguing purely from the definite meaning of each of the words." YOU DID NOTHING OF THE SORT!!!! NATURALLY, I WAS LED (I WILL NOT SAY MISLED BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU HAD THAT INTENTION) TO BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS THE EO POSITION. AND WHEN THAT ISSUE IS POSTED HERE, MOTALBAN INSULTED ME FOR ASSUMING THINGS.

The beamishboy just wants to clear his name. Next time, Thekla, if you argue a point, and I ask if that is the position of the Orthodox and you DON'T REPLY but continue to argue passionately, I will assume it's not and you are just arguing from your personal position. I will still ask you a few times but as in the previous thread, you probably won't answer. I can understand if I'm asking a complex question that demands too much of your time but if you can't even give a Yes or No answer, I'll be more careful because you may have led me to the wrong conclusion unintentionally but still refuse to correct my error.

After all this argument, can I take it that the EO position is that Mary was properly married (not just betrothed) to Joseph? If it's not, please correct me. I will then wonder why Thekla is so impenetrably silent but I know her well enough to know that it must be a huge mistake on her part and there can't be any intention to lead the beamishboy up the graden path. I did consider if it was a practical joke but I don't think so. Practical jokes are more common in the Teens forum but not here.

 

[Thekla]

How come?

Reve 16:16 And it together-assembling/sun-hgagen <4863> (5627) them into the place, the being called to Hebrew ar-ma-geddwn

Reve 20:8 and he shall be coming out to deceive the nations, the in the four corners of-the land, the gwg <1136> and the ma-gwg <3098>, to-be-together-assembling/sun-agagein <4863> (5629) them into the battle.................

we were discussing the word translated as wife (yuni) which means a woman of any age and marital or unmarried status, betrothed, wife

also, the word translated as husband has the same breadth

a verse was cited (Matthew) in which the translator had interpolated the word "home" into a verse where it does not occur in the Greek

again, we all rely on a bias/tradition to understand the Bible

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

we were discussing the word translated as wife (yuni) which means a woman of any age and marital or unmarried status, betrothed, wife

also, the word translated as husband has the same breadth

a verse was cited (Matthew) in which the translator had interpolated the word "home" into a verse where it does not occur in the Greek

again, we all rely on a bias/tradition to understand the Bible

Are these words translated as husband in these verses?

Matt 1:16 Jacob yet generates the Joseph, the husband/andra <435> of Mary out of whom was generated Jesus the one being said Christ.

Reve 21:2 And the city, the holy, Jerusalem, New, I perceived descending out of the heaven from the God having been made ready as bride/numfhn <3565> having been adorned/worlded to the man/husband/andri <435> of her.

Textus Rec.) Matthew 1:16 iakwb de egennhsen ton iwshf ton andra mariaV ex hV egennhqh ihsouV o legomenoV cristoV

 

[Secundulus]

I'm really confused. Do Orthodox Christians take the view that Mary was not married to Joseph or she was?

I'm sorry if I offended the other Orthodox Christians when I assumed all Orthodox Christians hold the view that Mary was not married. I realise now that it depends on which Orthodox.

I imagine we will know the whole truth when we get to heaven and can ask the Blessed Virgin and Joseph to their face what their relationship was.

In the meantime, Satan is having a good laugh at keeping us divided over such trivial matters.

Were they married or were they not? It doesn't affect the gospel and doesn't really matter.

Remenber the old saying: "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." These are the Bishops who make an issue of such things and keep us divided.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I imagine we will know the whole truth when we get to heaven and can ask the Blessed Virgin and Joseph to their face what their relationship was.

In the meantime, Satan is having a good laugh at keeping us divided over such trivial matters.

Were they married or were they not? It doesn't affect the gospel and doesn't really matter.

Remenber the old saying: "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." These are the Bishops who make an issue of such things and keep us divided.

I don't have any bishops to listen to

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7270298

Exodus 12:11 And as thus ye shall eat it/him. Waists of ye ones being girded, sandals of ye in feet of ye, and stick of ye in hand of ye. And you eat him in nervous-haste, passover/06453 pecach it to YHWH".

Matt 24:19 "Woe yet to those in belly having and to those suckling in those the days! 20 "Be ye praying yet that no may be becoming the flight of ye of winter neither a Sabbath.

 

[Philothei]

I consider all those posts about Mary off topic.... You guys can take this with pm...to each other.. Before the mods can come in and clean up this thread...This is getting ridiculous....

 

[jamescarvin]

Are these words translated as husband in these verses?

Matt 1:16 Jacob yet generates the Joseph, the husband/andra <435> of Mary out of whom was generated Jesus the one being said Christ.

Reve 21:2 And the city, the holy, Jerusalem, New, I perceived descending out of the heaven from the God having been made ready as bride/numfhn <3565> having been adorned/worlded to the man/husband/andri <435> of her.

Textus Rec.) Matthew 1:16 iakwb de egennhsen ton iwshf ton andra mariaV ex hV egennhqh ihsouV o legomenoV cristoV

I think by "wider" meaning is meant multiple meaning and in some case uncertain meaning. The Orthodox position is uncertain. Historically, there have been varied opinions both as to her perpetual virginity and as to the genealogy of Jesus, which also reads differently in Matthew 1 than in Luke 3. Eusebius points out correctly the use of the word "supposedly" in Luke, which can account for the discrepancies. The Peshitta has "was supposed to be."

The Orthodox "position" is that of the fathers. When the fathers are not in agreement we reserve judgment. What is important in the role of Mary is that she was a virgin. Some Orthodox liturgical language does spell out that she is "ever-virgin" because there always has existed that piety that reveres her and respects her womb exceptionally. The word "consecrate" means to set aside as holy. Therefore, many early church fathers held that James and Jude were half brothers of Mary. Others held that they were kin, but cousins rather than brothers.

Lamsa translates "husband" in Mt 1:16 as husband.

The idea that there can be a wider meaning in words shouldn't be surprising. Take the word "fire." This could mean "fire a gun," a "blaze of fire" or it could mean "fire an employee." Every language has words with multiple meanings for which context determines meaning.

The word "adelphoi" was like that. It could refer to blood brothers, half brothers or it could refer to cousins, or it could refer to spiritual brothers. In most cases it referred to spiritual brothers. There is enough ambiguity in the term to allow for uncertainty on the matter of perpetual virginity. This is fortified by other facts …

- Mary was given over to the care not of James or Jude but of John, the son of Zebedee
- Jude does not refer to himself as the brother of Jesus Christ, but as the brother of James and the bond-servant of Christ

The same type of uncertainty on the issue you get from reading Scripture alone, you get from the Orthodox Church and from the early fathers. If Scripture had more certainty tradition would have more certainty.

Luke is said to have painted an icon of Jesus with Mary. There seems to be some merit to the extra-Biblical tradition that he spent some time with her eating and that he used wood from a table the holy family ate on which was made by Joseph. To ascertain a second genealogy and matters relating to her birth it is possible that he went straight to the source.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think by "wider" meaning is meant multiple meaning and in some case uncertain meaning. The Orthodox position is uncertain. Historically, there have been varied opinions both as to her perpetual virginity and as to the genealogy of Jesus, which also reads differently in Matthew 1 than in Luke 3. Eusebius points out correctly the use of the word "supposedly" in Luke, which can account for the discrepancies. The Peshitta has "was supposed to be."

Thanks. I did a translation of both geneologies awhile back. Here is how Luke 3:23 looks in the greek and perhaps you can give a view on it?

LUKE 3:23 And He was, the Jesus, as-if years, thirty beginning being as supposed/lawlized/enomizeto <3543>, son of-Joseph of-the Eli.

Textus Rec.) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn o ihsouV wsei etwn triakonta arcomenoV wn wV enomizeto uioV iwshf tou hli

The W-H is worded differently though:

W-H ) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn ihsouV arcomenoV wsei etwn triakonta wn uioV wV enomizeto iwshf tou hli

3543. nomizo nom-id'-zo from 3551; properly, to do by law (usage), i.e. to accustom (passively, be usual); by extension, to deem or regard:-- suppose, thing, be wont

 

[Rick Otto]

Yo, Beam!

"but you were just arguing for the sake of venting your own beliefs

No, it looks more like she was simply trying to establish "plausible deniability".
I have no idea why she defined the discussion as if you needed a reality check instead of simply stating the EO position you asked for.

 

[beamishboy]

Yo, Beam!

No, it looks more like she was simply trying to establish "plausible deniability".
I have no idea why she defined the discussion as if you needed a reality check instead of simply stating the EO position you asked for.

Precisely. She led me up the garden path that that was the EO position and now she says to me, "Prove to me that I said the EO position was this". I mean, after all that argument and after accusing people who say Joseph was married to Mary as following an unbiblical Tradition and now, she implies non-marriage is not her position!!! Or at least I don't know what she's saying because the onus, she thinks, is on me to show what her stand is. Sheesh.

 

[beamishboy]

I imagine we will know the whole truth when we get to heaven and can ask the Blessed Virgin and Joseph to their face what their relationship was.

In the meantime, Satan is having a good laugh at keeping us divided over such trivial matters.

Were they married or were they not? It doesn't affect the gospel and doesn't really matter.

Remenber the old saying: "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops." These are the Bishops who make an issue of such things and keep us divided.

I'm still on earth and I'm asking about the EO position. Is that wrong? It's the reluctance to reply that is puzzling.

I only wrote about these things because Thekla asked me to prove that she said that was the EO position. If I had not linked people to this thread http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7268596&page=5

in which I have been discussing this issue at length with her, people would think I put words into her mouth which I did not.

 

[beamishboy]

In my searches, I found that there are serious differences between Coptic Orthodox and EO, so I can't use Anglian's answer as something that EO accepts. EO position remains elusive.

See this link on the differences:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/marriage-1.htm

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In my searches, I found that there are serious differences between Coptic Orthodox and EO, so I can't use Anglian's answer as something that EO accepts. EO position remains elusive.

See this link on the differences:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/marriage-1.htm

Did you try bringing it up on their boards

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145
The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=449
The Voice In The Desert - Oriental Orthodox

 

[Philothei]

In my searches, I found that there are serious differences between Coptic Orthodox and EO, so I can't use Anglian's answer as something that EO accepts. EO position remains elusive.

See this link on the differences:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/marriage-1.htm

Now how this relates to the topic???

 

[Montalban]

It's the reluctance to reply that is puzzling.

Your wish to continue to advertise dishonesty is still puzzling to me.

 

[Montalban]

Dear Thekla,

You and Rick Otto have so much trouble with a simple premise.

a) There is no evidence in the Bible that Mary was married. That's been stated.

b) You then go on to want to argue what is the Orthodox position on this issue.


a) is on topic. b) is not.

You've argued about a 'clear reading', I've replied and you ignore what you want and then are so dishonest to accuse others of what you're guilty of

Try and keep up you two.

 

[Montalban]

This is a perfect example, thanks for highlighting that it was a council and still as i underlined "following the guidance of scripture"

I have absolutely no problem with a Council making a ruling regardless of what source they used. It's still the Council's ruling.

In the past I have cited examples of where Councils have argued 'what was always taught' such as the declaration that Mary is the theotokos. Other's here have mentioned the definition of the Trinity.

Again, it's still the Council ruling

Only you are so selective in your use of evidence that you'd cite example a) as normative because it supports your stance and ignore example b) because it doesn't.

 

[Montalban]

Dear Simon,

There may be a little cross-purpose things going on here. The Orthodox Tradition holds that the Councils, along with Holy Scripture, the Liturgy and the writings of the ECFs, are part of a unified whole, allowing one to be sure that one is not, as heretics always have, quoting Scripture out of the proper context. The Orthodox do not see tradition and Scripture as being at all separate.

In my posts earlier on the brothers and sisters of the Lord, I was trying to provide a concrete example of how Holy Tradition works for us as a means of exegesis: Scripture and the Fathers, and the Councils, as well as the early Liturgies, all pint in the same direction; they do not allow us to arrive at a definitive verdict as between 'brothers' and 'cousins', although they suggest which of them is the older tradition.

Peace,

Anglian

There's a whole parade of Protestants here who take only what suits them

 

[Montalban]

I'll ignore the insults from Montalban because they don't contribute to this debate

You just prove my point. You're more than happy to accuse others of cherry-picking and you then turn around and do that.

The very fact you'd advertise this on a public forum speaks volumes about what sort of person you wish others to think you are.

If you want to deal with any of the points I have made feel free to do so. Your answers serve as a warning to those reading about the dangers of Protestantism - it's the only reason I keep discussing things with you - because you offer such a poor argument it helps people determine that Protestantism is a bad choice.