- Jul 6, 2004
- 25,292
- 2,868
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
THE SYNAXARION
On March 25 in the Holy Orthodox Church we celebrate the Annunciation to our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-virgin Mary.
When the All-Holy Virgin completed the fourteenth year after her birth and was entering her fifteenth year, after having spent eleven years of living and serving in the Temple of Jerusalem, the priests informed her that, according to the Law, she could not remain in the Temple but was required to be betrothed and enter into marriage. The All-Holy Virgin surprised the priests when she told them that she had dedicated her life to God and that she desired to remain a virgin until death. Then, Zacharias, the high priest and father of the Forerunner, under the inspiration of God, and in agreement with the other priests, betrothed the Virgin Mary to Joseph of Nazareth to preserve her virginity and to care for her. When the fullness of time had come, as prophesied by Daniel the Prophet, and when God was pleased to fulfill His promise to the banished Adam and to the Prophets, the great Archangel Gabriel appeared in the chamber of the All-Holy Virgin and, as some priestly writers wrote, precisely at that same moment when she held open the book of the Prophet Isaiah and was contemplating his great prophecy: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son! (7:13)” Gabriel appeared in all of his angelic brightness and saluted her: “Rejoice, highly favored one! The Lord is with thee,” and the rest in order as it is written in the Gospel of Luke. With this angelic annunciation and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Virgin, leading to the incarnation of our Lord, the salvation of mankind and restoration of all creation began.
Through the intercessions of the Most Holy Theotokos and of all Thy Saints, O Christ God, have mercy upon us. Amen.
.
Let's say the EOC and RCC are both totally wrong and that the Protoevangelium of James should be viewed as authoritative. Okay. So what? It STILL says NOTHING about Mary having had no sex ever or Jesus having no sibs at all. Even if it was a bit credible or a bit authoritative.
.
Clement of Alexandria, c175
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.3666
3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html
Again, he references the PoJ. He says, she was not a virgin upon bringing forth. The PoJ says she was.
Good luck finding any direct quote like the above from Clement of Alexandria about belieiving anything different.
What we have is two traditions at this stage. The brothers were same mother, different father. OR different mothers, different fathers. The former comes from scripture to Clement of Alexandria to Origen. The latter begins with PoJ and then is denied by CoA and Origen. In Origen's case, however, he nonetheless chooses the PoJ tradition.
God's Word referred us Psalm 69, btw.
Like all OT prophecies fulfilled through Jesus, what David is referring to in terms of his own biography, is fulfilled by the NT in often startling and livid detail-it often fits better to the time a thousand years hence than to David himself!
For all I know, not being an erudite Jew myself, what David was referring to himself in this biography could have been meant in a more general sense. The poison and vinegar given to him as food and drink may well not have been offered in the literal sense as was the case for Jesus. The children of his Mother likewise may have been meant more in a general sense. I am not totally aware of what he is referring to when it comes to himself.
For Jesus however, like the vinegar and gall given to him in mockery of his distress, were quite literally given him. Likewise, his brethren, the children of his mother according to God's written Scripture, specifically rejected him and he could do no works in his hometown on account of that disbelief.
Psalm 69 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary
The puerperal state is the state of demonstrating the bodily effect of childbirth; the author states she was not.
I'm not sure what you think the author means here - could you explain ?
I find it very foolish to believe that because the PoJ exists today that it must be the source of all miracles claimed.
Why is one miracle of God so much more difficult to believe than another?
I find it very foolish to believe that because the PoJ exists today that it must be the source of all miracles claimed.
Why is one miracle of God so much more difficult to believe than another?
From the Synaxarion:
"The All-Holy Virgin surprised the priests when she told them that she had dedicated her life to God and that she desired to remain a virgin until death."
Forgive me...
Clement of Alexandria, c175
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.3666
3666 [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html
Clement is contrasting the two states. Some say she was in the puerperal state, but she was not. Why do they say that? Because of the PoJ tradition. But she was not.
That isn't true. Going by Scriptures alone, and eliminate any early CF uninspired writing, when a sS Christian attempts to educate him/herself, they will at times conclude that they don't know if she was or was not since the word 'virgin' is not so clear in the translations. It's not a set dogma per say.Just to be clear. No Christian for 2000 years has denied a virgin gave birth. The division is over Mary's life thereafter.
The RCC does not follow the Jerome theory alone. It's one possible theory of the two. It may be the 'standard' now but it's not inclusive only to that one.EO---follows PoJ, the brothers are sons of Joseph/previous marriage.
RC---follows Jerome, the brothers are cousins
Are you saying all of these fathers admited to a tradition of same mother/different fathers?Other---there is, as has been shown, another scripture/tradition (Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem); that is, the brothers were in fact brothers (same mother, different father).
Can we get together or not?
You are 100 percent correct on this. His focus was the word 'puerperal' right after labour and has nothing to do with intercourse after the birth of Christ.The puerperal state is the state of demonstrating the bodily effect of childbirth; the author states she was not.
I'm not sure what you think the author means here - could you explain ?
You are 100 percent correct on this. His focus was the word 'puerperal' right after labour and has nothing to do with intercourse after the birth of Christ.
That isn't true. Going by Scriptures alone, and eliminate any early CF uninspired writing, when a sS Christian attempts to educate him/herself, they will at times conclude that they don't know if she was or was not since the word 'virgin' is not so clear in the translations. It's not a set dogma per say.
The RCC does not follow the Jerome theory alone. It's one possible theory of the two. It may be the 'standard' now but it's not inclusive only to that one.
Are you saying all of these fathers admited to a tradition of same mother/different fathers?
The PoJ says the young child appears, thus leaving her in the puerperal state. They say this because when examined, they found her still a virgin.
Clement says, she was not. He then goes on to say, for us scripture is the virgin. Not Mary.
PS. As you might be able to see, this impacts John 3, eh? But not to disrail.
You do realize there's a difference between perpetual and puerperal yeah?The PoJ says the young child appears, thus leaving her in the puerperal state. They say this because when examined, they found her still a virgin.
Soooooo St. Clement is saying Mother Mary was not a Virgin when She gave birth to Christ. Gotcha.Clement says, she was not. He then goes on to say, for us scripture is the virgin. Not Mary.
Please don't waste anymore of my time with your silly water/spirit analogy. I'm not biting.PS. As you might be able to see, this impacts John 3, eh? But not to disrail.
Depends which sS Christian believer you ask. And since last time I checked, there is no such thing as an sS Catechism, I'm going to have to affirm again with a no to that question.Being born of a virgin isn't a dogma?
I did a quick search online earlier and already found those who don't give much importance to it and can see it one way or the other.I don't know any Christian who denis 'born of a virgin'.
No I haven't so if you can, I'd like all the evidence where the word Tradition appears in each of these ECFs quotes. Not saying it's not there, I'm just interested in reading them myself.Yes. You must not be reading all the threads. All the quotes are here, but let me know which one you doubt.
The PoJ says the young child appears, thus leaving her in the puerperal state. They say this because when examined, they found her still a virgin.
Clement says, she was not. He then goes on to say, for us scripture is the virgin. Not Mary.
PS. As you might be able to see, this impacts John 3, eh? But not to disrail.
-snip-
No I haven't so if you can, I'd like all the evidence where the word Tradition appears in each of these ECFs quotes. Not saying it's not there, I'm just interested in reading them myself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?