The Feast of Sts. Joachim & Anna

scottbiddle · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:46 am

Anna1111 wrote:

The short answer: The Virgin Mary had only one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. St. Joseph, by some accounts, was previously married and had other children by his first wife (Most notably St. Salome & St. James), but they would not have been the Grandchildren of Sts. Joachim and Anna, but rather Step-Grandchildren (and, quite possibly older than their daughter, as St. Joseph is said to have been quite old when he was betrothed to the Virgin Mary).

We believe that the Virgin Mary was Ever-Virgin. This is a nice article for anyone interested in more details of the Church's understanding on this http://www.protomartyr.org/mary.html

The long answer is that the Scriptures say that Jesus' mother and brothers came to see Him (Matthew 12, Mark 6, Acts 1 all refer to Jesus' brothers and even sisters). Folks that wish to claim Mary was a perpetual virgin claimed those weren't really her children, but it begs the questions "If they were Joseph's children and they're older than Jesus, why didn't they go with Joseph to register in the census when Jesus was born? Did he leave Mary and re-marry? If so, why are his kids hanging out with Mary instead of with their own mom?"

According to Mark 6:3 it appears that Mary and Joseph had at least 4 sons and 2 daughters together after Jesus was born. Of course, if we don't limit ourselves to Scripture we can find lots of interesting stories that sound cool but don't make sense with the rest of the Bible.

Regarding the "ever-virgin" Mary, Matthew 1:24-25 indicates that Joseph "took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son" - not forever. "Until she gave birth to a son" clearly indicates that her virginity ended at that point and that after that point Joseph did not keep her a virgin. In my mind Scripture trumps tradition.

Carli · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:32 pm **Posts:** 135

An analogy for understanding Church Tradition. I have many memories in my family, as does my mother, and grandmother, and great grandmother, but they're not all written down. Oral tradition is used everyday throughout our world and throughout history. It does not invalidate the events. Scripture even states that not everything was written down...

Another thing. In cultures other than America, a person one might call a brother can also be their cousin, uncle, etc. As Americans this is usually a foreign concept to us.

What's interesting to me Scott, is that I wrote your responses just three years ago with that same firm conviction. But then I started studying the history of the Church, and I was humbled in my ignorance. There are some facts you're overlooking about Scripture and until you accept them, or at least see the possibility, discussions with those in either the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Traditions are going to go nowhere. The fact of the matter is, the Church was thriving long before the totality of Scripture was decided upon and within that time period, oral tradition was alive and well. If that is the case, there's no reason we can't trust it...afterall, those people using oral tradition brought to us the complete cannon of Scripture LATER, when it was possible to do so and they didn't bring it out so that an individual could define it alone. Scripture and Tradition go together. One without the other was never the intention of the Church Fathers. When you look at it from the other side, there's no question...there is nothing within Tradition that is against the Scriptures.

Darla · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:08 am

Here is the link I sent Pam about this very thing. There are other places in Scripture where the word "until" is used in the same fashion here -- not that it was until it happened later, but it never even eventually happened. There's much Scriptural backing -- old and new testament -- for the ever-virginity of Mary. The writers of the time were THERE. They knew if Mary had other children and they passed this info. along as they knew it. That happens a lot. I don't write everything down that I teach my kids or the stories I tell them of my childhood. But the stories are true all the same. You can disagree, and that's fine! But I have come to trust more what the ancient church gave the world, by the Holy Spirit, than individuals 1600-2000 years removed from the apostles.

Here's the thing: in Orthodoxy, there are no Scriptures wars (what means what). People aren't arguing back and forth about what the church has taught for 2000 years (there might be minor questions, but the beliefs the church have stood unchanged for a looong time). In Orthodoxy it's not Scripture vs. Tradition. Tradition and Scripture are part of the same thing and Scripture is part of Holy Tradition (the same church that gave us the Bible gave us the rest of Holy Tradition by the same Holy Spirit -- therefore we trust both Scripture and oral tradition; it hasn't changed for 2000 years, so seems pretty reliable). The church that gave us the Bible also interpreted it for us, and also held ecumenical councils church-wide to deal with heresies. If you don't want to trust this church, that's fine, but it IS the one that gave you the Bible so you do have to deal with that inconsistency.

The ever-virginity of Mary was the across-the-board belief throughout the entire church until the last 400 years. Even the reformers believed in the ever-virginity of Mary. It wasn't until some time after the reformation that this began to be questioned. I don't believe the Holy Spirit led the church in to error for 1600 or so years, and then corrected it a a point late in time. That's the beauty of Orthodoxy. It's the ancient beliefs of the church, from Pentecost forward, as the Holy Spirit "guide[d] the church in to all truth."

Does that mean God is not at work outside Orthodoxy? Not at all.

scottbiddle · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:27 am

The "ever virginity" of Mary was actually not widely accepted until the fourth century. The earliest references to this that I am aware of are from the second century and the link you provided doesn't actually cite anything from the first century claiming that Mary was "ever-virgin." The fact of the matter is that the only documents we have from the first century that address Mary's virginity are the gospels, which state that she was a virgin until Jesus was born. I am interested in hearing a list of places where the Greek word for "until" ἕως is used to indicate something that didn't have a transition from one thing to another.

The interesting thing about "Scripture wars" is that nobody disagrees about what documents from the 1st century ought to be used - the Bible as we have it. It isn't until you get to the second and subsequent centuries that different folks claim "tradition" that is of equal authority to the Scriptures. I know my "church history" (including the evolution of the 1st century church into the catholic and orthodox churches, the eventual protestant reformation and restoration movements). I have read plenty of first, second, third, and fourth century texts but I still insist that the tradition of man is not and will never be equal to the Word of God.

Darla · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:31 am

scottbiddle wrote:

Folks that wish to claim Mary was a perpetual virgin claimed those weren't really her children, but it begs the questions "If they were Joseph's children and they're older than Jesus, why didn't they go with Joseph to register in the census when Jesus was born? Did he leave Mary and re-marry? If so, why are his kids hanging out with Mary instead of with their own mom?"

You do realize, Scott, that you're inferring a lot (without Scripture to back it up) to answer these questions the way you want them answered, right?

Darla · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:36 am

scottbiddle wrote:

The "ever virginity" of Mary was actually not widely accepted until the fourth century.

This is when the church made an official statement of the fact (put it in to writing, if you will), but it's what the church taught all along. Having it clarified at the ecumenical council shows that it's what the church taught and believed -- it wasn't introducing a new idea to get the people to agree to.

Anyway, we obviously have a different approach to the faith and there's no used arguing, really. We both are speaking a different "language" as it were. I couldn't stay in protestantism any more after experiencing all the inconsistencies and division. There are Bible scholars as astute as yourself that would agree with the Scriptural basis for the ever-virginity of Mary (including Luther and Calvin, and others today). It's kinda like my personal study of women wearing head coverings. I studied that 1 Cor. 11 passage out word-by-word asking God to show me, and I believed he showed me that all women should be wearing head coverings in church. And yet I came across other women who studied the same Scripture passage who came to a different conclusion. I gave up trying to figure it all out on my own, and learned to trust the church that God established in the first century (the "pillar and foundation of the truth").

Darla · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:44 am

scottbiddle wrote:

I am interested in hearing a list of places where the Greek word for "until" ἕως is used to indicate something that didn't have a transition from one thing to another.

Meant to address this, sorry for so many posts.

Quote from above linked article:

Quote:

"...and he knew her not up to [Greek = eos] her having brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7).

This verse seems to be often translated as "he knew her not until after..." This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original, "eos", indicates the true meaning, of "he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth." The Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression.

This same term and meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression:

At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus.

At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that "Joseph knew her not till after...", but in fact, he never "knew" her at all.

In another example, the Bible says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? Of course not ! Hence, the Bible does not say that "Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus."

scottbiddle · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:52 am

In the second and third century Tertullian did NOT teach that Mary was perpetually virgin. Helvidius also taught that Mary was not a perpetual virgin in the third and fourth centuries. It wasn't until the 7th century that any church officially claimed as a point of doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

In fact, Origen (who believed in the perpetual virginity and tried to meticulously create a case for it) clearly states that it was first mentioned in the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Peter, both of which are acknowledged to have been written a hundred years after the death of Mary in the late second century. There are to my knowledge (and to the knowledge of folks who researched it in the third and fourth centuries) no first or early second century writings that claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Darla · **Posted:** Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:34 pm

scottbiddle wrote:

There are to my knowledge (and to the knowledge of folks who researched it in the third and fourth centuries) no first or early second century writings that claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

And I have no problem with there not being first and second century writings. It doesn't mean it wasn't what the church was teaching and believing. That's already been mentioned -- not everything gets written down; I tell my kids truthful stories of my life that aren't written down. Just because they're not written down doesn't mean they're suspect. Even the Scriptures say clearly that there was both written and oral teaching by the Apostles, with the context giving credence to both modes, and that there was much more that could be written but wasn't (not implying that that which was not written down was lesser, just ... not written down).

The church was fully full and functional without a written canon, for more than 300-400 years. This can't be disputed. The church lived and grew and developed like any living organism would by the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit; it is too big and alive and real to be limited to written words. The Holy Spirit was/is more than able to keep the church pure and united. My thought process is "How can the Holy Spirit, Who gave us the written word so perfectly, be incapable of keeping the church -- the Body of Christ -- united as one?" If He can do it with some written texts, certainly He can also do it with the living organism that is the Church. (Thank you Lord!)

Yes, there were letters being passed around, but no Bible had been put together and many of the letters being passed around eventually were not included in the canon can Scripture, right? And yet the church grew and flourished. Martyrs died for this church that didn't have written Scripture yet. Why? Because it was a living faith, not a written faith. The Bible is wonderful -- and a big part of our faith -- but it's not the "pillar and foundation" of the Orthodox faith. The Body of Christ -- the Church -- is, Scripturally so.

Pam in Colorado · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:58 pm **Posts:** 1095

I find this discussion to be very interesting and thought provoking. I am not a scholar of any century writings on church history/tradition... As I get older, I am drawn to know more. In the end, I know I will not "know" everything for certain. It does bring about great discussions, as it did last night in our Bible study. Since this is not necessary to salvation, I will keep it all in perspective and that to me is... In the end, I just want to draw closer to God, regardless of if I "know" for sure or not. Hopefully, no matter where we stand on these types of issues, that we are striving to strengthen the Body of Christ.

Forum rules

The Feast of Sts. Joachim & Anna

Who is online