Old topic, new thought

[Uphill Battle]

I was looking at the difference between the RCC claim of perpetual virginity, and that of the EO.


RCC maintains that Joseph and Mary were married, but never had relations.

EO maintaints that they were never actually married.

now in looking at these to claims closely, I can see a bit of a problem with both.


the RCC version: A marriage must be consumated to be valid. In fact, typically, Jewish brides were taken aside at the ceremony for just this event!

in the EO version: God decided, despite his character of being all truth, to endorse and promogulate a very serious deception of everyone other than the family. to "hide" things from Satan, Mary and Joseph were betrothed so that he would look elsewhere. If they weren't actually married, why then did all assume that Jesus was the son of Mary AND Joseph? Either a) they were deceived into believing that Mary and Joseph were man and wife, when they were not or b) they were deceived into believing that Joseph sired Jesus during the betrothal period. There doesn't seem to be any other options, as they beleived Jesus was the son of Joseph because they could not fathom the incarnation.

What do you think? Was Mary and Joseph in an invalid marriage, or was God an active participant of deception?

 

[Tyndale]

both are wrong and need to produce more dogma to back up their claims. I was surprised at the EO stating they weren't married, when clearly the bible says they were. Maybe they too believe that marriage must be consumated to be valid.

 

[IamAdopted]

I was looking at the difference between the RCC claim of perpetual virginity, and that of the EO.


RCC maintains that Joseph and Mary were married, but never had relations.

EO maintaints that they were never actually married.

now in looking at these to claims closely, I can see a bit of a problem with both.


the RCC version: A marriage must be consumated to be valid. In fact, typically, Jewish brides were taken aside at the ceremony for just this event!

in the EO version: God decided, despite his character of being all truth, to endorse and promogulate a very serious deception of everyone other than the family. to "hide" things from Satan, Mary and Joseph were betrothed so that he would look elsewhere. If they weren't actually married, why then did all assume that Jesus was the son of Mary AND Joseph? Either a) they were deceived into believing that Mary and Joseph were man and wife, when they were not or b) they were deceived into believing that Joseph sired Jesus during the betrothal period. There doesn't seem to be any other options, as they beleived Jesus was the son of Joseph because they could not fathom the incarnation.

What do you think? Was Mary and Joseph in an invalid marriage, or was God an active participant of deception?

Well I say that both are wrong for scripture tells us they were married and that Jesus was her firstborn son.

 

[Uphill Battle]

thats not the point guys.

I don't believe either is true.

My point is, in each scenario, I find a problem.

 

[Tyndale]

I see many problems, but what is the one you wish to consider?....the marriage?

I don't want to take this thread down a line you weren't intending, so please state the nature of the problem or else I might just start speculating dangerously that Joseph and Mary didn't know Jesus was divine until the feast of the passover, when he was 12.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I was looking at the difference between the RCC claim of perpetual virginity, and that of the EO.


RCC maintains that Joseph and Mary were married, but never had relations.

EO maintaints that they were never actually married.

now in looking at these to claims closely, I can see a bit of a problem with both.


the RCC version: A marriage must be consumated to be valid. In fact, typically, Jewish brides were taken aside at the ceremony for just this event!

in the EO version: God decided, despite his character of being all truth, to endorse and promogulate a very serious deception of everyone other than the family. to "hide" things from Satan, Mary and Joseph were betrothed so that he would look elsewhere. If they weren't actually married, why then did all assume that Jesus was the son of Mary AND Joseph? Either a) they were deceived into believing that Mary and Joseph were man and wife, when they were not or b) they were deceived into believing that Joseph sired Jesus during the betrothal period. There doesn't seem to be any other options, as they beleived Jesus was the son of Joseph because they could not fathom the incarnation.

What do you think? Was Mary and Joseph in an invalid marriage, or was God an active participant of deception?

One very obvious option you are over looking...

Mary, scriptures tell us repeatedly...
'Kept these things in her heart......'

IE, Mary never said anything. She, being filled with Grace, said nothing. God's Spirit was always with her, and she knew in her heart to not speak.

So, in order to fulfill the prophecies, she let ppl think as they wished.
Doesnt mean she had to speak on any of it.

 

[Davidnic]

the RCC version: A marriage must be consumated to be valid. In fact, typically, Jewish brides were taken aside at the ceremony for just this event!

Indeed and since God called Mary to be the Mother of Christ and sent an angel to Joseph to take her as his wife; their marriage does not require any sexual activity to be valid. It is valid because God set them for each other.

For the argument that their marriage must have had physical consummation to be valid because of Hebrew law would mean that we would still be beholden to all of the tennents of that law. We are not. And the marriage of Mary and Joseph was valid despite the lack of physical union.

 

[PassthePeace1]

I think the statement can be made that Mary and Joseph were both married and unmarried.

Unmarried by today's marriage customs.

Married by ancient Jewish customs. From what I remember, and this was a while back..when I was first coming into the Church, Jewish marriages back in bibical times....were arranged into parts. First was the betrothal, then what we would call the marriage.

The betrothal was considered a legal agreedment, and at that time...they were consider husband and wife legally, during the betrothal period. Only after the marriage ceremony was the marriage, consumated.

That's really all I remember....

 

[Lotar]

The Bible never stated that they married; only that they were betrothed.

Jesus was Joseph's son legally because he and the Theotokos were betrothed. Betrothal in the traditional sense entails all the legal aspects and responsibilities of marriage, except for sexual relations.

Furthermore, that Christ was accused of being the result of fornication. Also, for the sake of argument, if the Virgin and St. Joseph were married at some point, it is clear that it happened after Christ's birth; so the flimsy argument that God "decieved" people would apply in either case.

Furthermore, where in the world did you get the idea that God had them get betrothed in order to hide things from Satan?

 

[Uphill Battle]

The Bible never stated that they married; only that they were betrothed.

Jesus was Joseph's son legally because he and the Theotokos were betrothed. Betrothal in the traditional sense entails all the legal aspects and responsibilities of marriage, except for sexual relations.

Furthermore, that Christ was accused of being the result of fornication. Also, for the sake of argument, if the Virgin and St. Joseph were married at some point, it is clear that it happened after Christ's birth; so the flimsy argument that God "decieved" people would apply in either case.

Furthermore, where in the world did you get the idea that God had them get betrothed in order to hide things from Satan?

I got the idea from another EO.

 

[IamAdopted]

God would not be into deception. For there is only one who deceives. So therefore they were married. The bible says they were. The RCC states that she was a PV. This is also twarthed by scripture. God would not have a man and woman marry to obstain from sexual desire. For they are to become on flesh. This entitles the marriage act.

 

[Davidnic]

Actually the first record of this (PV) ever being challenged by the Antidicomarianite group around 200 AD. They were opposed by the Chruch fathers of the time who refuted the idea. So it goes beyond RC teaching. It is early Church teaching that was defended by the united church just like the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

 

[prodromos]

I got the idea from another EO.

Who got it from the Church Fathers (their names escape me at the moment)

John

 

[Uphill Battle]

Actually the first record of this (PV) ever being challenged by the Antidicomarianite group around 200 AD. They were opposed by the Chruch fathers of the time who refuted the idea. So it goes beyond RC teaching. It is early Church teaching that was defended by the united church just like the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

Care to share that record?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Indeed and since God called Mary to be the Mother of Christ and sent an angel to Joseph to take her as his wife; their marriage does not require any sexual activity to be valid. It is valid because God set them for each other.

For the argument that their marriage must have had physical consummation to be valid because of Hebrew law would mean that we would still be beholden to all of the tennents of that law. We are not. And the marriage of Mary and Joseph was valid despite the lack of physical union.

then would you say you could sleep with a woman before following the legal strictures where you live? has God grown that lax?

or is it just Jewish laws that were repealled? We are to follow the laws of our country, unless they countermand God. I fail to see the difference, nor do I believe that God makes special cases where "hey, you two don't have to play by the same rules as anyone else."

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think the statement can be made that Mary and Joseph were both married and unmarried.

Unmarried by today's marriage customs.

Married by ancient Jewish customs. From what I remember, and this was a while back..when I was first coming into the Church, Jewish marriages back in bibical times....were arranged into parts. First was the betrothal, then what we would call the marriage.

The betrothal was considered a legal agreedment, and at that time...they were consider husband and wife legally, during the betrothal period. Only after the marriage ceremony was the marriage, consumated.

That's really all I remember....

the betrothal period was a period of preperation, however.... not a continued practice!

 

[Davidnic]

then would you say you could sleep with a woman before following the legal strictures where you live? has God grown that lax?

or is it just Jewish laws that were repealled? We are to follow the laws of our country, unless they countermand God. I fail to see the difference, nor do I believe that God makes special cases where "hey, you two don't have to play by the same rules as anyone else."

But He did in this case already. For Joseph to take Mary as his wife he had to not denounce her. He had to take her as his wife and by that say that Christ was his physical child. That he and Mary had sex before the marriage.

That was not true. But that was, basically, what the Angel told him to do. So either God made a special case under the law for them from the start or Joseph was the physical father of Jesus.

God indeed makes special cases.

The basic point is arguing that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was not valid because it did not have consummation argues that God setting them for each other is lesser than the law.

 

[repentant]

St. Ignatius is who said the Theotokos' virginty was hid from "the prince of this world"...

Also they were never married, like it has been stated numerous times, it is an incorrect translation of the word yunaika, which means woman, not wife..

Also the other EO's explained the betrothal part, which came before an actual marriage, or conscumation of it..

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

They thought He was Joseph's Son, but He wasn't. Scriptural proof that people thought Jesus was Joseph's Son, and that Jesus' true Father was hidden, or kept from everyone else. Would you say they were deceptive in this?

 

[Iollain]

http://www.ccel.org/search?category=fulltext&qu=hidden+prince+of+this+world

you can search the ecf's here. Here is the one your looking for:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.xix.html?highlight=hidden,prince,of,this,world#highlight

...only speaks of her virginity when CHrist was conceived and born.

 

[Uphill Battle]

St. Ignatius is who said the Theotokos' virginty was hid from "the prince of this world"...

Also they were never married, like it has been stated numerous times, it is an incorrect translation of the word yunaika, which means woman, not wife..

Also the other EO's explained the betrothal part, which came before an actual marriage, or conscumation of it..

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

They thought He was Joseph's Son, but He wasn't. Scriptural proof that people thought Jesus was Joseph's Son, and that Jesus' true Father was hidden, or kept from everyone else. Would you say they were deceptive in this?

right Yunaika....
so...

Matthew 1:20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as YOUR WOMAN, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Ephasis mine.

Still means much the same thing.