more questions

In Luke 1:28, Gabriel greets Mary not with her name, but with the word/title "kecharitomene," or "full of grace." It is the past participle of "charitoo" and translates best as "made full of grace."

In Semitic usage, a name expresses the reality of the person/thing to which it refers.

This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just "highly favored." She has been perfected in grace by God. "Full of grace" is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Now remember that grace is a gift from God (cf. Ephesians 2:8, 3:7), therefore it is not earned. Mary did not earn her honor, she was preserved solely by the "grace" of God, as we can see in the title "kecharitomene." Her redemption came in a different way than did ours, yet she herself was saved by grace. (Incidentally, and ironically, it is the Imaculate Conception [not formalized in dogma until the 19th century] that is the very source of the beliefs, rooted in Sacred Scripture, about Mary's perpetual virginity.)

The idea that Mary had no children but Jesus comes out of the fact that her womb held our Savior for 9 months, in Spirit and in Body -- she was a perfect Ark of the New Covenant. Now, the womb of the woman who carried the Incarnate Lord, could not have been tainted with sin, lest the Devil have a foothold on the Lord.

This is another reason why Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John) called Mary the "new Eve" - for just as Christ was the "new Adam" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), so was Mary a new Eve, also without the taint of Original Sin.

One man I knew, from the Assemblies of God Church, had never heard of the "Immaculate Conception"; in fact, he preaches something which is complete heresy, that Jesus' blood and could not have come in contact with Mary's blood or bodily fluids, less He be tainted by her sinful nature; but Christ took his HUMANITY from her "seed" and only from her. This man's words resembled the early heresy Doceticism, which believed Jesus passed through Mary like water through a tube. She was a vehicle, contributing nothing to Jesus’ being. I will not get into how Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus dealt with this heresy, but it has been refuted since its origin in the late 1st, or early 2nd Century.

From the flesh of Adam woman was made. As Eve was deceived and rejected God, Mary believed and said "yes" to God. Not only "yes" but she acquiesces to the will of God completely ("genoito" in Greek) which is a foreshadowing of her own son's redemptive work through full obedience to the Father (cf. Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Heb. 10:5-7; Psalm 39:7-9).

Mary was the daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit - a unique role of having a complete relationship with the Trinity!

Now, image the bond a mother has with her child as she carries that child for 9 months in the womb. How much MORE beautiful, amazing, and TRANSFORMING would it be to have the Incarnate Word of God within your body, growing and developing.

Imagine then having the Word of God, the Son of God, growing up in your house... would that not make you focus your attention more on worshiping God than on having sexual relations with your spouse? There is NOTHING wrong with sex within marriage, of course! It is a holy act, a life-giving act (Gen 1:28, 9:1-7, 35:11; Lev.18:22-23;20:13; 1 Chron. 25:5; Psalm 127:3-5, etc.)

However, given what I stated above about Joseph, Mary's pregnancy, and Jewish custom, they would not have had sexual relations, but if they could have, would they have? You have God in your house! Wouldn't you rather spend your time doing other things which are spiritual? Especially all that Mary and Joseph had been through, who's to believe they would be "in the mood" for anything but prayer, meditation, thanksgiving, glorifying God.

Chastity during marriage was not uncommon (though not the norm) in Jewish history. Br. O****o notes several examples:

"Living a celibate life within marriage was not unknown in Jewish tradition. It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:15) given in preparation the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19; 46.3; Sifre to Numbers 99 sect. 11; Sifre Zutta 81-82, 203-204; Aboth Rabbi Nathan 9, 39; Tanchuman 111, 46; Tanchumah Zaw 13; 3 Petirot Moshe 72; Shabbath 87a; Pesachim 87b, Babylonian Talmud).

"Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives (Zohar Hadash 2:1; Midrash Mishlei 30, 105, Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the "Divine Presence") in the Torah (Zohar re Gn 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya)."

A vow of chasity was practiced on several levels in Jewish Tradition:

"Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu'im (lit. "chaste ones") to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in "perfect purity" (Kiddushin 71a; Midash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11; Yer. yoma 39a, 40a).

"Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5).

"Philo (Apol. pro Judaeis 1X, 14-17), Josephus, (Antiq. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus (Philosophumena IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea.

"Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. "Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth" (Philo, Cont. 68; see also Philo, Abr. 100)."

"For 'the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light' (Zohar 11. 229b-230a). Because 'if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions... it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation' (Philo, Sob. 1.5). Conversely, 'the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing... the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable' (Philo, Q. Gen.IV.245)." (O****o, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary")

In the New Testament, we see the widow Anna (Luke 2:36-38) who is even called a "prophetess" (probably because people sought out her gift of discernment due to the holy life she led under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) for she dedicated herself (remaining chaste) to "worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day" (Luke 2:37).

The pro-chastity sentiments of Jewish Tradition are echoed in Matthew 19:12 and 1 Cor. 7.

Now, these last couple examples seem to deviate from the concept of marital chastity, but they are nevertheless pertinent to understanding the not-so-outlandish (and very HOLY) concept of marital chastity as seen biblically and through Sacred Tradition.

"Jewish tradition mentions that, although the people had to abstain from sexual relations with their wives for only three days prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:15), Moses chose to remain continent the rest of his life with the full approval of God. The rabbis explained that this was so because Moses knew that he was appointed to personally commune with God, not only at Mount Sinai but in general throughout the forty years of sojourning in the wilderness. For this reason Moses kept himself 'apart from woman,' remaining in the sanctity of separation to be at the beck and call of God at all times; they cited God's command to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:28 (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19:3 and 46.3).

"Again, we may be sure that Saint Joseph remained celibate all his life because throughout his married years he was in daily attendance and communication with Jesus, the incarnate Word of God." (O****o, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary").

Take a look at Luke 1:31-34. Gabriel tells Mary that she "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be since I know not a man/am a virgin?" Mary's response is in the PRESENT, which is normal; she WAS a virgin as she said those words! However, at this same time, Mary is betrothed to Joseph, meaning she'd be getting married soon. Gabriel tells Mary she "will" have a baby, and for women who are about to get married, the idea of having children sometime in the future is pretty logical! Yet Mary finds the statement perplexing!

After all, for all we know, Gabriel could have meant "In 10 years you will have a child." Look at Sarah and Isaac, and how long it took for that prophecy to be fulfilled. So why was Mary so perplexed by Gabriel's words?

Perhaps this demonstrates (as the "Protoevangelium of James" suggests) that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

When Jesus is lost in Jerusalem in Luke 2:41-51, there is never any mention of other siblings. In John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 we see that younger "brothers" were criticizing Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

And in John 19:26-27, John is told to take care of Mary, as Jesus is dying on the Cross. It would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers, especially since families lived very close-knit back then.

Now given all the biblical verses attesting to Mary, it stands to reason that the Church (as well as the Protestants) have always maintained that Mary did not give birth to other children. Now, if the "evidence" I have presented in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity do not sway you, so be it. But you must admit that there is a lot more of a case for perpetual virginity than against it, both biblically, and based on 2,000 years of Christiandom. The "evidence" of Mary's having born other children is based solely on a few vague biblical verses, not on history, nor on theology, nor on Tradition.

In any case, the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is NOT based on some apocryphal work, but on biblical, Christological theology.

In no way did someone decide to sit down and say, "Today let's venerate Mary because we like her." There would be no value to that. The deeper understanding of doctrine's revolving around Mary are linked to the redemption of Christ and the role she played in the life of Christ, as His mother. They were not something taken lightly, and Mary, apart from Christ, is nothing. However, she is the most blessed of all women (cf. Luke 1:42) but again, this is only because of the child she bore. There is no

I have the hardest time understanding why most Protestants so outright, flatly reject the notion? Is it really that hard to fathom that Mary and Joseph would consecrate their lives, entrusted to raise Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, to the Lord God Almighty in such a way? Why are they so opposed to the very concept?

In any event, I believe it is because most Protestants do not understand that the concept is not something to exalt Mary, but rather, exalts Christ and reaffirms sound doctrine (as it did against the Nestorian heresy, and other heresies throughout the centuries). Mary's "veneration" is an INDIRECT result of this theology, but that is totally biblical. After all, Mary was humble "handmaid of the Lord", and as the Bible tells us, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matt. 23:12; cf. James 4:10; 1 Peter 5:6).

There's a lot more I could get into regarding Mary, but basically, I just wanted to let you know that I didn't see much "proof" in your essay that Mary had given birth to any other children other than Jesus. The more I reflect on Catholic Doctrine, the more it makes sense. But that's to be expected: the Holy Spirit brings the Church into all Truth (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit "overshadowed" the Church at the Pentecost, the Bride (flesh of His flesh, born from the rib of Jesus) of Christ.

"Behold your mother" -- and honor her!

In doing so, you glorify the Son!

Whew!

lookinguptoo said:

I just read the link that was given, "A note for Evangelicals Considering Rome". I really disagree with it because I don't think Protestants and Catholics are basically the same. In fact, I think Protestants and Orthodox are MUCH MUCH MUCH more alike. I think it would be easier for a protestant to become Orthodox (if they knew what Orthodoxy was) than Catholic. The very things mentioned in the article that Orthodox disagree with with Catholics are exactly the same things Protestants disagree with. I think by and large conservative Protestants and Orthodox believe basically the same things, not entirely but basically. For example, yes it is true that the Bible is extremely important to Protestants but I imagine it is also extremely important to Orthodox believers as well. On other hand, I also believe the Word of God is the Person of Jesus Christ because He said in the beginning was the Word and He IS the Word. I think the Protestant and Orthodox beliefs must have a different emphasis, but we can agree on the Personhood of the Word. We can agree on It being a Living Word, and we can agree on Its great importance to our lives.

Click to expand...

And Catholics don't care about the Bible?

I think that if the Protestants knew what the Orthodox believed, they would still have a big problem: the Real Presence in the Eucharist being the biggest stumbling block.

And when he had taken her, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son."5 He hath here used the word "till," not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, "till"? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, "The raven returned not till the earth was dried up."6 And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, "From age until age Thou art,"7 not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, "In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,"8 it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord9 commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."10

St. John Chrysostom - The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Homily V

To refute the perpetual virginity of Mary, anti-Catholics have to resort to saying Psalm 69 PROVES Mary had other kids:

"I have become a stranger to my kindred, an alien to my mother's children." - Psalm 69:8

According to Protestant apologists, this verse is a Messianic prophecy regarding Jesus. Since it mentions "my mother's children," they say that Mary must've had other children. How do they know it applies to Jesus?
Because other verses of the Psalm are quoted in various parts of the New Testament:

· Verse 4 is quoted in John 15:25
· Verse 9 is quoted in John 2:17 and Romans 15:3

So, how do they get from those verses being Messianic prophecies to verse 8 being one also? They say that the whole Psalm is a Messianic Psalm. This may seem convincing at first, but let's see what else the Psalm says.

"O God, you know my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you." - Psalm 69:5

"Draw near to me, redeem me, set me free because of my enemies." - Psalm 69:18

"But I am lowly and in pain; let your salvation, O God, protect me." - Psalm 69:29

Since the whole Psalm is (supposedly) a Messianic prophecy, we just conclude that Jesus was a sinner (verse 5) in need of salvation (verses 18 and 29), which we know He wasn't. So, is the whole Psalm really a Messianic prophecy? Hardly. Protestants have to sacrifice their Christology to "prove" (from the Old Testament, no less!) that Mary had other children.

The thread has officially been highjacked

lookinguptoo said:

If you are getting tired of my questions just let me know, and I will be silent, but I have some more. If a divorcee who has remarried or someone who has divorced 3-4 times and wants to convert to Orthodoxy, will the church accept such a person even if that person does not consider his/her divorces a sin?
I believe we do agree on hell afterall. From reading Lotar's thread, I was under the impression that hell was considered an eternal separation from God knowing the person rejected God's love but not an actual place of physical torment, but you are saying is really a physical place of torment and I believe that too.
In the case of marriage, if one spouse is devoted to God and the other is devoted to the world even though they both consider themselves Orthodox, do you still believe they will go to the same eternal place or separate places?
Next, CopticOrthodox said Rome has "first honor" (what is first honor anyway?) and Chanter said the Jews have first honor so is this just a difference in different Orthodox church doctrines or is there one official doctrine and individuals are left to have their own opinions?
I know this may be a touchy subject but it is my understanding that death is the result of sin. If we were sin free then we would not have to die, but because we all sin, we all have to die. Jesus died because He took on the sins of all the world, not because He had any personal sins but because He mercifully became a sacrifice for our sins. Considering death is the result of sin, if you believe Mary died, then would that not confirm she sinned at some point in her life, maybe it was just a small sin but it was sin nonetheless?

Click to expand...

I believe that previous marriages & divorces will not prevent a person from entering Orthodox since those marriages were not Sacramental, one would simply confess all past sins, and thier current marriage would be blessed in the Church, becoming Sacramental and indisoluable, but one would have to talk to a priest in detail aobut thier own situation to get an exact answer as to how it would be handled.

Hell is a physical place, under the dominion of Satan, but no other torment there comes close to matching the greatest punishment, being separated from God completely, which is what being in Hell means above all else.

The Council of Nicea gave Rome first honour. At the time Rome was one of 5 major sees (bishoprics) in the Church, since Rome has since separated herself from Orthodoxy, Rome has no meaningful canonical status in the Church, and Constantinople has first honours among the sees. What does first honours mean? It means the bishop of that city is bishop of a really important city, so they sit at the head of the table. It's not a big deal.

In my limited understanding, we believe that Mary was born in the same state as all humans, with the same nature, but that God preserved her from sin. The consequence of sin is death, and Adam and Eve died since they sinned, but they passed on their fallen nature to thier children first. Mary was a child of them, and had this nature so she died, despite the fact that she did not personally sin. Christ also took on this nature, but being Life, He defeated the death in it so that our natures can be restored by participating in His Death and Resurection. Keep in mind that when we're talking about this we're talking about 2: 1. the separation of body & spirit, and 2. going to Hades or Hell. St. Mary departed, here spirit and body where separated, but she did not go to Hades like the rightous of the OT did, she went to Paradise, the Bosom of Abraham, until her body was raised and she was assumed into Hevean, so we shouldn't really say she died, just that she fell asleep, or departed. Likewise we, if we remain in God's grace, will never die. We will depart, but we will never descend to Hades, we will go to Paradise until our bodies are raised for the final judgment and we go with Christ to the Heavenly Jerusalem.

There is no place where God is not, those who reject forgiveness will suffer all the pain of hell, but it will be the Light of Christ that is the fire.
Jeff the Finn

jeffthefinn said:

There is no place where God is not, those who reject forgiveness will suffer all the pain of hell, but it will be the Light of Christ that is the fire.
Jeff the Finn

Click to expand...

Sorry, I did mean spiritually cut off from God, as in not in relation with Him, I didn't mean that He isn't there.

Regarding the sinlesness of Mary what does everybody hold to as a defintion as sinless? I ask this because I have heard and read several different opinions on this issue. Does sinless mean she was free from every imperfection, minute, and small sin? Or does it mean that she was free from most sins, but that she still plagued by sins of omission and any others there might be?

From lookinguptoo: Also, someone mentioned that salvation is a process. Does that mean you believe salvation is based on works?

Click to expand...

No, we do not believe that salvation is based on works. Salvation is by God's grace alone (Eph. 2:8).

Jesus died for all of mankind. When He did that He paid the price for all of our sins. In the objective sense He has already saved all of us.

But God has chosen to apply the grace purchased for us by Jesus only to those who seek it through faith that produces good works, works that include prayer and participation in the sacraments of the Church. That is the subjective or personal part of salvation, the part that is a lifelong process.

This is what St. Paul was talking about when he said "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12) and "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us" (2 Tim. 2:12).

Dear Looking:

The website you read is that author's own opinion. He is not writing in the name of the Church.

lookinguptoo said:

Maximus, if you do not consider marriage outside the Orthodox church as a sacrament and you do not consider communion outside the Orthodox church as a sacrament and people who are not members of the Orthodox church are not allowed to participate in your communion, does that mean you believe it is close to impossible for those outside the Orthodox church to go to heaven since participation in the sacraments of the Orthodox Church are essential for salvation, in the Orthodox view?

Click to expand...

Dear Looking:

God is only going to judge you for what you honestly believe in your heart. If you are coming to an Orthodox belief, then by all means check it out. You are responsible for what you do know. God does work through the reading of Holy Scriptures as He is the Word of God.

Hope this helps.

lookinguptoo said:

In the article "A Note for Evangelicals", it says "To put it bluntly, She (the Orthodox Church) knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church". Do you believe the Orthodox know a different Christ than Protestants as well? I truly hope not because that would mean we are worshipping two different Gods. Of course, there is only one true and living God. It sounds to me like we pretty much believe the same things so I would like to consider the Orthodox as my brothers and sisters. However, if you worship a different Christ than I do, then I would like to know why and who your Christ is. I know my Christ is the Christ of the Bible, the Son of the True and Living God. I hope your Christ is that Christ too, isn't He? My Christ is not the same Christ as the Jehovah Witness or Morman Jesus, but it sounds to me like He is the same Christ that you know. Am I wrong? I am just now learning about Orthodoxy through each of you that so kindly answer my questions so there may be more that I do not know. If we worship a different Lord, please tell me now.

Click to expand...

As you mentioned, some protestants don't really know Christ as God. We cannot judge. We can only pray for all men that they will come to the truth. We are only responsible for our own salvation; however we also are responsible if we cause scandal and lead others astray.

Hope this helps.

Elizabeth