Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
"Orthodoxy is the way it is even if I don't understand it."
How true.
"It sort of goes without saying that the clergy, especially the monastics, would "know" the Bible — and by that it is understood by rote, from having read it countless numbers of times."
Yes, it goes without saying for *us*, since we are familiar with examples of good Orthodox monasticism. But for those who are not familiar with the specifically Orthodox monastic tradition, this is often a surprise that the Scriptures are so central.
OOPS! Sorry, I didn't know that. But it's good to learn. I'm glad I said "as far as I know..." :)
You forgot the 'rather'.
Mary was blessed for bearing the Lord.
But that was over.
Now she was no different from anyone else and was blessed by taking in the word of God like anyone else.
No charade. Good works are the result of faith, not something we do to earn it.
Christ's redemption cannot be bartered.
First, King James had nothing to do with the translating of the King James Bible except authorizing it.
Second, 'favored' is used by the NASB and the NIV as well.
You admit that it is a possible translation.
Third, the word 'favored' simply means blessed anyway.
The real issue is did Mary need a saviour (not being born sinless).
She stated that Christ was her saviour (Lk.1:47).
The only other place the word form is used in the New Testament is Eph 1:6 "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." The phrase "made us accepted" is the same word form. This is flat wrong and betrays somoene who is not reading Greek, but does not mind lying about the Gospel. I'd like to know who your source is, so we can avoid that author. "eis epainon doxes tes charitos autou en e echaritosen emas en to egapemeno" (Eph 1:6). Check for yourself at Unbound Bible. "Kecharitomene" does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament.
A Roman Catholic talking about a Protestant lying about the Gospel!
LOL!
Now what does Mary have to do with any Gospel, except a false one?(Gal.1:6)
Who ever said that it did?
What God wanted later generations to know is what is written down.
We have a number of books cited in the Old Testament that did not make it into the Canon.
There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Of what purpose is a soul to a lizard if it cannot be saved?
By wanton destruction of everything God gave us, we demean God's Creation on a daily basis.
Wanton destruction? Do you mean as in killing pigs for bacon and pork chops? Are you a vegetarian? Do you wear leather shoes? Do you use a checkbook and read paperbacks which are produced by cutting down living trees?
All living things have a soul.
Does a tree have a soul? A weed? Compost?
Hi, ftd. And amen.
Joseph got his revelation after the betrothal, so the deal was already all but sealed. Why would a temple virgin leave the "Church" to get married just to NOT have a family? IIRC, the Protoevangelium also says that Mary came from a wealthy family, so she was not a charity case. She did not need "taking care of". (In fact, Mary was actually marrying downward socially because we know what her sacrifice was at the Temple after Jesus was born. At that time she was no longer rich. So this theory makes even less sense.) How does it further the spirituality of the virgin or the Church for her to leave the Church just to live with a man in a platonic relationship?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what was in this arrangement for Joseph from the beginning? If all is as you say, then Joseph willingly walked into a situation where he bore all of the responsibility of marriage and none of its benefits. I love how the Protoevangelium describes how Joseph was extorted into this and took Mary as a wife out of fear. I'm sure they shared that lovely story with Jesus all the time as He was growing up. :)
I understand that the Protoevangelium is going to agree with your entire story line of how this all happened. That's where you got it! :) It just doesn't make logical sense to me. If the answer is that God simply set it up this way and the proof is the extra-scriptural Protoevangelium, then all I can do is respectfully disagree. But of course this would mean that the Bible is interpreted THROUGH the Protoevangelium, not the other way around.
I just ran across this post, and I felt that I had to point out that this is one point where you and I are seemingly in agreement, at least with regard to the New Testament.
The KJV is the best translation of the New Testament from an Orthodox point of view, IMHO (although there are those who have knee-jerk reactions against it because of its supposed Protestant bias.)
The Greek manuscripts that Erasmus had when putting together the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV is basically translated, were (not surprisingly) texts from the Eastern Orthodox Church. They follow the Byzantine text-type, which is what the Orthodox Church considers to be the authoritative textual tradition.
Add to that the fact that the KJV is translated using principles of exact equivalence, rather than "dynamic equivalence", and the result is a translation that (quite aside from its beauty and readableness) is in most cases a quite literal translation of the Greek New Testament used by the Orthodox Church.
I agree.
A few answers to your questions:
1. According to tradition, Mary's parents were very elderly when she was born (sort of another Abraham/Sarah) story. As I recall, her parents died while she was in the temple, so she couldn't return to live under their roof. In those days, women just didn't live alone -- unless they were a not very nice sort of woman.
2. Joseph was a distant relative and was very pious. He was elderly, and thus didn't need the usual (ahem) benefits of marriage in the way a young man might. Among other things, Mary cared for Joseph in his old age. I wouldn't exactly say that he was not going to get anything of benefit from the marriage. Given that he was a very devout man, it would hardly have been unpleasant for him to spend his final years with a woman who would care for him and pray all the time.
3. It is not really accurate to say that the Orthodox Church gets our traditions from the Protoevangelium. The Protoevangelion is merely the oldest known written account of a common pre-existing oral tradition.
4. Given Jewish laws of ritual cleanliness, once a temple virgin had reached a certain age (and BTW, Jewish tradition talks about temple work being done by young virgins, also) where she was going to be "unclean" on a monthly basis, she could no longer live in the Temple. She could return as an older woman once she had been through "the change", but she couldn't stay through into her teenage years and beyond.
My, my but this is turning into a regular love-fest! :-)
LOL. Poor Joseph.
This reminds me of one night before Christmas several years ago. We were all asleep when we heard a rustling noise on the front porch. We got up and looked outside to find Joseph had just been stolen from our Nativity scene, leaving Mary as a single mother and the baby Jesus fatherless.
Adding insult to injury, our six-foot Santa was found the next day upside down in a nearby creek.
Male-bashing at its worst.
Thank you for the clarification. I also remember one that had more of a skeletal figure, sort of in a box, that was being stepped on by Christ. But, I might be thinking of something off the subject.
Don't let your spouse see what you said the only benefits of marriage are. :)
It is also the best translation of the Old Testament as well.
Outside of tradition, I don't know why she couldn't have experienced birthing pains either. That was one of the few explicit consequences of ancestral sin, so if she had it, then why not? We also know for sure that Jesus felt pain, so why not Mary.
I don't understand why there is the view that if Mary had birthing pain, that it would be Jesus' fault or causing. Nobody has ever blamed the baby for that, the reason for it was already known to all who knew their scripture.
Plus, if we carry this idea forward, that Jesus could not have "caused" his mother any pain, then one has to say things like Mary's back never hurt after lugging Him around as a tyke. Or, that Mary never stubbed her toe while running after Him. Under this standard, we do know for sure that Jesus "caused" Mary considerable emotional and psychological pain, since it was within Jesus' power to not go to the cross (in His capacity as God). So in a sense, Jesus did inflict pain upon His mother.
The verse says that in the Resurrection we will be like angels in that we will not marry after the resurrection
It did not say that the saints are now like the angels.
Now, the fact is the Bible is silent on what the saints know about what is going on earth.
The one case that we have about someone in the afterlife talking about those still alive on earth was the rich man who was in torments.(Lk.16)
And when he asked that Lazarus be sent back, he was told that those alive had Moses and the Prophets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.