Re: christian schools and doctrinal issues (was: Death penalty)

> Do Orthodox believe Mary remained a virgin? 

>Yes, though that's a somewhat distinct belief.  If the question concerns Mary's 
>*sinlessness*, the Orthodox and the Catholics seem to have rather different 
>takes on that, I think -- and the difference is largely due to the respective 
>churches' different beliefs about sin itself.

For example, whenever I hear Catholics talk about immaculate conception, they 
tend to say it was something that needed to happen in order for Jesus to be 
conceived without sin -- as though Jesus were the one at risk here. But the 
Orthodox emphasis, as I've encountered it, has always been on the fact that 
*Mary* was at risk for coming into such incredibly close contact with the divine 
-- indeed, becoming "one flesh" with it, as it were.<

I did understand they were distinct beliefs, but saying that I find Mary needing 
purification to come into contact with God far more satisfying a concept than 
her needing to be perfect, (immaculately conceived), in order to bear Jesus.  
And one I'd never heard before, not having had much exposure to Orthodox 
doctrine except on this list.


>That's *my* way of putting it, BTW; I don't believe I've heard anyone else say 
>that Jesus was "one flesh" with Mary.  "One flesh" is a term that we normally 
>associate with sex and/or marriage, not with mothers and children.  And yet, the 
>basic fact of the matter is that children *take* flesh from their mothers, yes?  
>And there's a give-and-take between mothers and fetuses in terms of blood 
>supply, etc.<

That raises a question I hadn't thought about.  Was Mary merely the vessel into 
which God placed a miraculously formed zygote or did He actually impregnate 
Mary, using her egg and miraculously fertilizing it?  The latter would be the 
only "taking flesh" I could see, while children take nurishment from their 
mothers I don't know that they take any flesh, in the literal sense, except the 
egg and in that case the child takes flesh from his father as well in the form 
of the sperm.  


And not that you were suggesting it but children in the womb don't share a blood 
supply with their mothers.  While there is the provision of nutrients and oxygen 
I believe that is done through the placenta.  Otherwise children would have to 
have the same blood type as their mother and that certainly isn't the case.  
Fearfully and wonderfully made indeed!


>It is for reasons like this, BTW, that we believe Mary remained a virgin. Once 
>she had been "one flesh" with God himself, in a mother-child sort of way, how 
>could she become "one flesh" with anyone else, in a wife-husband sort of way?  
>What Jew of that era would have dared to go there?<

I don't have the problem with perpetual virginity the way I do with the 
immaculate conception but I've always liked the idea of Jesus having real 
brothers and Mary being one of us.  The purity for Mary's sake makes a lot of 
sense in terms of pre incarnation and birth but once Jesus is born it wouldn't 
be required.  And of course no one went up in smoke when they touched, or were 
touched by Jesus, so the purity would only have to be for the purpose of the 
touch from God the Father when Mary became pregnant.  


I also have thought that her remaining a virgin was asking too much of 
Joseph.  He manned up and stayed betrothed to her inspite of how it had to have 
looked and to think he was rewarded with "nope you still ain't gettin' any" 
seems so unfair.   

Mike F. 

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot