Perpetual Virginity of Mary - EO apologetic

[Ryan2010]

WHAT SOME PROTESTANTS THINK ON THIS...



I will first turn to the "Fathers of the Reformation" to speak for Orthodoxy in defending the teaching that Mary was "Ever Virgin". First I will let Ulrich Zwingli (leader of the Swiss Reformation, divided from Lutheran Reformers because he denied Christ's real presence in any form in the Eucharist) speak to this:



"She (Mary) had to be a virgin and perpetually a virgin..." (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 422, by H. Heppe).



And in a prayer he calls her:



"the pure and ever virgin..." (Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 184, by Jasper & Cuming).



Regarding the verse that "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until" [Matthew 1:25], John Calvin maintains in his commentary:



"Those words of Scripture do not mean that after His birth they cohabitated as man and wife..." (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).



And on the subject of Jesus' brethren he said:



"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'...It is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because there are several mentions of Christ's brethren" (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).



This has always been the undisputed theology regarding Mary. From the Apostles on down nobody disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary for nearly 1600 years. This teaching is even considered to be prefigured in the Old Testament as reflected in the hymnology of the Orthodox Church:



"The shadow of the law passed when grace came, as the bush burnt, yet was not consumed, so the virgin gave birth yet remained a virgin, the Sun of Righteousness has risen instead of a pillar of flame, instead of Moses, there is Christ, the Saviour of our Souls" (Theotokion, tone 1).


THE ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT: BIBLICAL ANALYSIS

The word "brother" has a broader meaning in the Bible. It is not only used to mean the actual brother, but also the cousin or even the nephew.



For instance, Lot is called "Abraham's brother" whereas in reality he is his nephew (Gen. 14:14). Jacob is called a brother of Lavan whereas in reality Lavan is his uncle i.e. Jacob is his nephew (Gen 27:43. 29:15).



Kis's sons are called brothers, whereas in reality they are cousins of Eleazar's daughters (1 Paralip. /1 Chron. 23:21-22). 2 /4 Kings 10:13-14 talks about 42 brothers of Ochozius. Clearly, it must talk about people related to him but in a more general sense of the word.



The reason for this "brother" word problem is that neither the Jewish nor the Aramaic tongues have a special word in order to express the notion of a "cousin". When they wanted to mention the actual cousin as such they would do so periphrastically i.e. "son of the [father's] uncle" or "son of the brother of the mother". For this reason the actual cousin is expressed by the word "brother" when mentioned at one word. Thus, from the other verses will we only be able to (hopefully) understand if it really means "brother

[Ryan2010]

Returning to the issue of the "brothers" of Jesus.



Judaic law stated that a woman without a husband or fiance is to be stoned to death! This is the reason why Joseph was given to her as a fiance; and certainly not husband (he was betrothed to the Virgin). And this is why Joseph is "father" of Jesus in the law. Similarly, his brothers were brothers in the law; and the word brother as we said means something much more general biblically (c.f. Gen. 12:5. 13:8. 29:12. 1 Paralip. / 1 Chron. 23:21-22). Were we to take seriously the view that these were real brothers, we would also have to face the possibility that Joseph was truly Christ's father; but then we're on a slippery slope if we claim that both God and Joseph were Christ's fathers and a multitude of new terrible heresies can spring from such blasphemous words.



After all, we said above that the Apostle in 1 Corinth. 7:7-8 asks people to be like himself, in particular celibate, and also in verse 38, explicitly now: "so then she that marries does well, she that does not does better" (essentially) and stays celibate that is. So the one staying celibate does better. We ask you: wouldn't God want the best for the woman that would bear Him, especially in purity?



Therefore the idea that she was given as a wife to Joseph in the law makes sense for she could stay celibate forever; and be safe of course! For Joseph was protecting her, as the Law asked, and the Pharisees could not do anything regarding the issue of Jesus, as by law Joseph was Mary's "fiance" and the child was legally theirs as they knew (c.f. Luke 4:22) and thus (as Joseph would not make an issue of it after being informed by the angel) neither would the people that would hate Jesus later on say anything nor would the child and His mother be in any danger by them nor would the Virgin's purity and life of purity be in any danger!



But to understand more clearly why the betrothal would grant such priviliges whereas matrimony would not (even if they got married but accepted to have no matrimonial relations) needs more special attention. Let us therefore look more closely into that now.



BETROTHAL vs. MARRIAGE



We cannot stress enough the point that the Holy Bible does not claim that Virgin Mary was ever given to Joseph in marriage. The Holy Bible speaks only of betrothal. The usage of the words γυνή and ανήρ in Greek are not used to exclusively mean "wife" and "husband", but also "woman" and "man", respectively, words that can be used equally to indicate (apart from the obvious gender attribution) the "fiance" or his "fiancee" respectively (i.e. the ones that were betrothed or "engaged" to each other).



So why do we stress this point? What difference does it make? It makes the world of difference because if the word γυνή -- which gives rise to the word γυναίκα that is mentioned by the Angel to Joseph -- does not necessarily mean "wife" but can also mean "betrothed", we need to examine the difference between the two rites: betrothal and marriage.



Betrothed, married ... same thing, right?



No! At those times, the betrothal was performed before a couple got married. Even if they never got to be married in the end, the betrothal required that no matrimonial relations took place during that period (although the couple had all the responsibilities of marriage in every other respect). This is what ensured Virgin Mary's purity. The betrothal with Joseph was the trick.



Many Protestants will not disagree with this. However, they might think that eventually Virgin Mary actually married Joseph (after their betrothal), even if they never had children together (what the Protestants sometimes call consummation of wedding). Other Protestants will need to support the very idea of marriage taking place in order to ensure that their theory of children can be true.



Let us put the issue of children aside, for a moment, and concentrate on this question: Did Virgin Mary actually marry Joseph after their betrothal? The Bible does not mention anything on this. The other Tradition of the Church however, tells us that they never did. This also makes sense hagiographically. Let us now examine this point.



Had she got married to Joseph -- even if they actually agreed to have no matrimonial relations -- she would still have had two husbands, God and Joseph! That would cause a lot of theological problems (including questions relating to Joseph being a real step-father of Jesus, and what if he had had children with another woman, a true possibility, and so forth) but we will keep things simple here and concentrate on what we can see immediately.



It certainly contradicts four points (some of which are mentioned later on in these notes in more detail):



a) What Jesus uses, He wants it only for His own use.



b.) She would need to tend to the things of a human husband and not keep her thoughts only of God. The Divine Economy wanted to secure not only her future celibacy (because that could also be secured by being married after their betrothal and agreeing not to come into matrimonial relations) but also to secure her future life of celibacy (something that the betrothal could guarantee but which marriage couldn't, with its many daily distractions).



c.) What about some common sense?



If we accept the fact that she was planning to have no children with Joseph (recall "man I know not?" and the ample proof provided elsewhere in this text), what would be the point of them continuing with marriage? Wasn't the betrothal good enough? As far as the society was concerned, the fact that she was under the wing of a pious old man was good enough to make sure she is not stoned, especially at a time when she was about to give birth to a Child. The betrothal kept her safe from the society and would suffice to assure her safety afterwards as well. The only real reason they would need to continue to matrimony would be because they were in love with each other and in order to have children. But Joseph had been commanded in his dream to take her as his γυνή (= betrothed or wife, unclear) and clearly not with matrimonial aims in the mind of the Angel but so that she does not get stoned to death were she left on her own or sent away thus endangering herself and her Baby. Before the Angel came to him in his dream, Joseph was indeed planning to send her away, and Mary clearly shows no intentions of wanting to get married to Joseph ("man I know not?"). What then? The Holy Spirit forced them then to marry?!



For she did not want to marry Joseph. And Joseph, who was an old man, had no such intentions present anywhere in the Bible (he did not even feel jealous or reprimand her when she came back from Elisabeth fully pregnant). And we are to believe that the Pure All-Holy Virgin, entitled as "The Virgin" in the Old Testament prophecy, uniquely praised among men and women, succumbed to the pleasures of married life and the frivolity of wives, and decided after giving birth to God (not to His divine nature but to Christ fully God and fully human) that she would, after all, follow the "perks" of the Angel's supposed suggestions (as they would have been) and have a few more children with Joseph, realising indeed that having children will make her life complete - and who cares about having given birth to God and to the purity that heaven and earth had praised her for till that moment?!



Oh, the impiety!



And if she had no intention to marry Joseph why not stop at the betrothal and decide to marry and thus risk the temptation of matrimonial relations which would end her virginity, the virginal life being a life higher than the married life, as the Bible informs us, and which is the road followed by many people today, e.g. monks and nuns?



Does this issue perhaps have something to do instead with the fact that Protestants abolished monasticism and virginal life and could not stand to even hear the word Ever-Virginity i.e. Celibacy?



d.) This matter is very important for our salvation (as soteriology coincides with Christology, and the issues on the Virgin are directly related to Christology). Nevertheless, we point out that, once the ignorance of Protestants' koine Greek and ecclesiastical history is corrected, sola scriptura in itself is unable to provide a full answer to this matter because the Bible never actually mentions anything as regards Virgin Mary and the Righteous Joseph having proceeded with the marriage or not, even if the rest of this text clearly shows the absurdity and blasphemy of such an argument.



Joseph in fact had probably been married to another woman, who had probably died; and now stayed only with Mariam, which itself is not strange of course for even in those times the Jewish community placed the woman higher than other areas did, and even though polygamy was allowed, people tended to stay with one woman. Men however were allowed to have more than one woman at the time. The fact that Joseph might have had another woman stems also from the fact that he was much older than her; she was only 16 when the annunciation happened, as sources from ecclesiastical history and Tradition certify.



And one final point as regards married life in betrothal or marriage that is of interest to us.



Some Protestants may claim that the fact that Virgin Mary stayed betrothed only and never got married was sin. However that is not how the law worked in those times. In those days it was very common to bring a young girl home to an elderly man and it was permitted for a man to have more than one woman (of either the "betrothed" or the "married" stage or both). The people would stone adulteresses to death but they did not interfere with a couple's personal life. (And if the reader finds this society harsh, they should realise that pagan societies were a lot harsher than the Jewish society in those days! This is why God first brought the Law into the society, which was harsh, and slowly prepared the Jews and the rest of mankind for the arrival of His Son). Since marital bond held legal value in those times, the "trick" of the Divine Economy is in fact totally legal. This way the Law was not violated (although of course afterwards it was complemented with the arrival of our Christ and Saviour Jesus Christ).



All these things make sense both hagiographically and based on the situation of the times; even the situation with Elisabeth. Let us turn our attention to that now, for it will help us understand the situation with the angel and Joseph better when we return to examine the aforementioned event with the angel.



ANNUNCIATION AND OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES



After the Virgin found out the incredible event enclosed in the Evangelism (Annunciation) that the Angel told her about, she stayed alone and thoughtful. She wanted to tell to somebody her big secret; but to who? In Nazareth it was impossible to announce something like this. Who would believe her? In a world, much like today's, loose in faith and ethical values, it was impossible to find even one person to make them understand. But even if she could find someone, it is doubtful she would confess such a great secret to him or her. She does not even say it to her "spouse", Joseph, the man who had protected her so far. He wouldn't believe her either and would probably try to send her away. With the help of the Spirit however, the solution is found. She leaves Nazareth and goes running to the highland to meet her relative, Elisabeth. After all, the Angel had told her that something similar had happened to Elisabeth.



The journey is long; it takes her approximately three days to reach there. Old Elisabeth is her relative. She is the wife of the priest Zechariah, the one who later on will betroth her to Joseph. She too became pregnant miraculously. She is about to bear John the Forerunner.



Elisabeth welcomes her with piety. She bows before her and with a loud voice calls her "blessed among women". And she even calls "the fruit of her belly" as "blessed"! The All-Holy Virgin is taken aback! She understands that Elisabeth knows something about the Great Secret, before she had any time to say anything to her, because Elisabeth asks her: "και πόθεν μοι τούτο, ίνα έλθη η Μήτηρ του Κυρίου μου προς με;" She hears her calling her "Mother of her Lord". How did she find out? Did the Holy Spirit tell her?



For three months they stay together and discuss things. When Panagia returns to Joseph, and he notices her belly that is getting bigger by the day, he loses faith and is disappointed. He thinks it is sin and does not want to keep her in his house; he fears God's wrath! He is a good man, though, and the law in such circumstances wants the woman to die by stoning her to death. He thinks she doesn't deserve this, a young girl and all, practically a child, and is preparing to send her away, which befits his role as her protector. While he is thinking of his plan, an Angel of the Lord appears in his sleep and tells him: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mariam, your woman". He calls her his "woman" (meaning of course fiancee because the word the angel used was γυναίκα which is accusative for γυνή - in other words woman and not wife; and it can also mean, as it does here, fiancee), even though she was not (or ever wanted to be; remember the "man I know not"?), in order to show to him that there was no one else in between! "Do not be afraid", the Angel continues, because "the One born from within her is from Spirit the Holy". The pious Joseph obeys of course and does as the Angel commanded, without any more doubts. He takes the Virgin under his protection and since then becomes her "guardian angel".



Is it illogical or strange based on the above to deduce that the "cover-up trick" of the Economy used to make certain people think that Joseph was truly meant to be her fiance (for he actually was her fiance but not with the intention of marriage), was continued afterwards as well? And to think instead that the woman that had been chosen for her piety and virginity (which virginity biblically is a great virtue as we said and virginal life is higher than married life) gave in to her "spouse" Joseph, something that would mean she had to tend to the things of her husband in the law, a human, despite the place that had been chosen for her from God? In a way then, it is like she had two husbands, God and Joseph!



Inside her womb where Christ was rising, how could others follow as well, mere humans, since what Christ uses wants it only for His own use (c.f. Mark 11:2. John 19:4)?



But her Annunciation had been prepared from ages old through God's infinite wisdom. Indeed, there are many prophecies from the OT that are of interest to us. Let us turn to these now.



Thousands of years had passed from the time when God had kicked out the protoplasts from Heaven, due to their deadly sin. Then His Voice had been heard foretelling that the offspring of the woman would crush the head of the accursed snake, i.e. of Satan, which Eve had stepped upon (Gen. 3:15):



"And I will put enmity between thee [i.e. the snake] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel". So important she is that God foretells here that the Saviour of the World would be born of a woman and He means the Virgin Mary, Who bore from Holy Spirit and not in a natural way. Thus the Virgin "έτεκεν ασπόρως" (gave birth without a seed) and stayed always Pure, without a husband, ever Virgin.

[Ryan2010]

Prophet Isaiah calls her "the virgin" (Isaiah 7:14. Matt. 1:23) and Ezekiel calls her "gate", that was and stayed shut: "it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut" (Ezek. 44:1-3).



Some more obscure prophecy is "For I also was my father's son, tender and as an only-begotten son in the sight of my mother" (Proverbs 4:3). No, I didn't get it wrong: it does say "only-begotten" in the Masoretic text. But of course we all know that Solomon here does not refer to himself, for he himself was not only begotten (2 Sam. /2 Kings 11:27. 12:24)! And yes the word "only-begotten

[Ryan2010]

4. ORIGEN (185 - 250 AD)



Let us now turn our attention to Origen. Regarding the interpretation of John 2:11, he says: "It is talked over by many, how it happened that Jesus had these brothers, since Mariah stayed a virgin till her death [note of myself: there was no dispute over the ever-virginity issue; simply people were wondering how this was the case].  He did not have flesh brothers, nor were any born by the Virgin, nor Himself was He born from Joseph. They were called brothers of His in the law, being sons of Joseph before his wife died". Regarding the interpretation of Matth. 12:55, he also writes: "They [the verses] talk of the brothers of Jesus ... they are sons of Joseph with a previous woman whom he had been "συνωκηκυιας" to [cohabitated with i.e. married to], before Mariah". Here is yet another ancient testimony regarding the ever-virginity of the Theotokos and that His brothers were not from the Theotokos, but from Joseph with another woman.



5. ATHANASIUS THE GREAT (295 - 366 AD)



Athanasius the Great (295 - 366 AD) says in his speech on the Incarnation (Migne Eccl. Trad. 25: 109): "from Mariah the ever-virgin", and regarding the interpretation of Luke 11:27 he writes: "... and she, the one that gave birth to the Lord and ever-virgin ..." (Migne E.T. 27, 1393).


6. EPIPHANIUS (313 - 402 AD)



St. Epiphanius writes in his writing against the heretics (Adv. Haer 78, 6 p. 642, 705): "She did not have relations [meaning sexual] neither after the birth [of Christ] nor before the birth", but she stayed "holy and immaculate" (Haer. 78, 14. 24. 15. 16). He also wrote that "the one that mentioned that name of the Holy Mariah would always add the word 'virgin'. The name Virgin was given to her because she had always stayed pure".



7. GREGORY OF NYSSA (335 - 394 AD)



Gregory of Nyssa said: "We consider the Virgin like a new tome. In the same way the new paper is clean, unwritten, this way too the Virgin is holy, clean of man".



8. IERONYMUS (345 - 420 AD)



Ieronymus as we said above, wrote a whole work and proved, using as testimonies the words of the apostolic fathers, the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. He characterises the opposite view of Helvidius as "weird, ill-natured , audacious, contumelious to the common faith of the christians". Interpreting Ezekiel, he writes expressly regarding the Theotokos: "Quae et ante partum et post partum virgo permansit"; that is: "She stayed a virgin both before and after the birth [of Christ]" (in Ezech. XLIV; c.f. also in Cal. IV, 4).



9. AUGUSTINE (354 - 430 AD)



Augustine , who is accepted as a saint by a lot of Protestants (e.g. some Anglicans), says expressly: "virgo concepit, virgo peperit et post partum virgo permansit" (De symbol 3,5).

"Virgin was she when she conceived, virgin she stayed when she gave birth, and virgin she stayed after the birth" (Migne 40, 181 - 196).

10. BASIL THE GREAT (330 - 379 AD)

Basil the Great says on his speech on Christ's Birth (Migne 31, 146, 8): "The hearing of the philochrists [i.e. those who love Christ truly i.e. the christian brothers; a common expression of the time and today too in Hellas], does not even want to hear that the Virgin stopped being Virgin at some point ".

Christians do not even want to hear the ridiculous notion that the Theotokos ever stopped being a Virgin!

11. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (345 - 404 AD)

As we said above, the Bible calls Mariah wife of Joseph's before Christ's birth and not afterwards. "Take the child and his mother" says the angel to Joseph.

Father Chrysostom says, discussing the interpretation of the word "έως" as discussed above, mentioned in "ουκ έγνω αυτήν έως ου έτεκεν" (Matth. 4:25): "This was said, not in order for you to suspect that afterwards he [Joseph] came to know her [i.e. consummated the marriage] ... The word "έως" many times and continually, in the holy Bible, do we find it written [with this meaning]" (Migne E. T. 78, 102).

12. JOHN THE DAMASCAN (645 - 750 AD)

John the Damascan in Migne 94, 1161, says (in a slightly more '"free" translation here so it makes sense in English) : "the ever-virgin stayed a virgin even after the birth [of Christ], without having had any relation with any man until her death".

SUMMARY AND SYNOPSIS



Christ is the new "root"; He does not come from the old "root" of Adam. Virgin Mary stayed a virgin during the birth of Christ. But she was a virgin before the birth (Is. 7:14. Mt. 1:23). She also stayed a virgin after the birth: Christ is mentioned as "only-begotten in front of His mother" in Proverbs 4:3 according to the Masoretic text. This is because this verse here is not referring to Solomon, who, as is well-known, was not "only-begotten of his mother" (cf. 2 Kings 11:27 and 12:24).



Also, whatever Christ uses, He wants it only for His own use (Mark 15:2. Jn. 19:41). This holds for the case of virgin Mary. This was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 44:1-3). Virgin Mary is the gate through which the Word passed. Apart from Him, no one else passed. It stayed forever shut. We also read this in ancient hymns of our Church; e.g. in the Akathist Hymn: "Χαίρε πύλη μόνη, ην ο Λόγος διώδευσε μόνος, η μοχλούς και πύλας Άδου Δέσποινα, τω τόκω σου συντρίψασα, Χαίρε η θεία είσοδος των σωζομένων, Πανύμνητε".



Joseph, of course, is mentioned as the "husband" of the virgin but he is also called "father" of Jesus (Mt. 1:19. Lk. 2:41 and 48-49), and Mary herself is called "wife" of Joseph (Mt. 1:20). Indeed, the above make sense as expressions of relations according to the law. This is because, truly, according to the law, Joseph was Mary's "husband" and "father" of Jesus; but only according to the law, in order to protect the mother and the child. He was "her man" - the original reads ανήρ - in the sense that she was engaged to him, a sort of "fiancee" to him (cf. Mt. 1:18-20. Lk 1:27. 2:5), and was considered legally engaged to Joseph; and if she would bear a child from someone else, she was to be stoned to death (Exodus 22:16-17. Deuter. 22:28-29. Jeremiah 16:40).



Joseph, after Jesus' birth, is not any more called as Mary's "ανήρ" and there is mention now of the "παιδίον μετά της μητρός αυτού" (Mt. 2:11-14. 19-21). However, the Jews were considering Joseph as Christ's "father"; according to the law, he was indeed his father, not however father of his in the flesh (Jn. 6:42).



The writers of the New Testament that mentioned this topic were aiming to clarify the birth of Christ "without seed". For this reason they underlined that Joseph "did not know her, έως ου she gave birth to her son the firstborn" (Mt. 1:25). The "έως ου" does not refer to what would take place in future, but to that thing that took place in the past, until that moment that Christ was born, independently of the future events (cf. Gen. 28:15. 2 Kings 6:23. Ps. 71:7. 19:1, in relation to Hebr. 10:12. Mt. 28:20. 1 Tim. 4:13).



The word "πρωτότοκος" refers to the event that the virgin's womb was opened with the birth of Christ, and not to supposed events that relate to other children, that were supposedly born after Him (cf. Exodus 13:2. 1 Kings 6:7-14).



In the Holy Bible there is mention about the "brothers" of Jesus, but never ever were these "brothers" called as Mary's children. They were children only according to the law, not in flesh (Mt. 2:46. 13:55-56. Mark 6:3. Lk 8:19-20. Jn 2:12. 7:3,5,10. Acts 1:14. 1 Corinth. 9:5. Gal. 1:19). The same so-called "brothers" of Jesus, call themselves "servant" of Jesus Christ, after His ascension, and not "brother" (James 1:1. Jud. 1). After all, the word "brother" has a more general meaning in the OT (Gen. 12:5. 13:8. 29:12. 1 Paralipomena 23:21-22).



Mary therefore was a virgin before Christ's birth, stayed a virgin during the birth, and afterwards, and for this reason is represented in icons in the company of three stars which represent her triple virginity.



CONCLUSION

Therefore the succession, the "I am with you all the days" of the Lord's words in Matth. 28:20 is in favour of the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. When the angel told the Theotokos during her Evangelism that she will bear a son, she replied: "How come this for I know no man?". We said before that this implies that she had the intention of staying a virgin forever. And indeed. All the fathers of the Church believe that Joseph, "did not take [the Virgin] for [his] use, but rather it was oeconomised for him to watch over her", as St. Epiphanius writes against the heretics (Against heresies 78, 7; Migne E.T. 42, 721 A). In simple words, the Divine Economy brought Joseph in her life not in order for her to meet a husband truly, since the Bible underlines that the best for a woman is to stay a virgin all her life, but to protect her from the malice of the people.



Of course one could write many more testifications of the fathers on this issue. For more details, if one wishes to read a more thorough theological analysis on this issue, they can examine the work of Mark Siotis' "The Problem of the brothers of the Lord" esp. p. 57 , subsection 6 (in Greek).


I shall agree that the Bible does not speak explicitly on the issue of the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. However, even biblically the argument is in favour of the Orthodox and not the Protestants, whose views go against all (or some) of the above.



From a historical perspective (Fathers of at least the first 4 centuries AD) the argument is 100% in favour of the Orthodox, even taking into account the above exception. Therefore whatever is vague from a hagiographical point of view becomes clear when seen through the prism of the Tradition (in which the Bible belongs to as well).



I will leave the reader with two questions to ponder upon.



One is based upon the image of the Church as the Panagia that we meet in the Book of Revelation.



As we saw in our basic analysis, Revel. 12:1-6.13-17 presents the image of a woman dressed the sun and glorified with the almighty glory. This represents the Church (the word Ecclesia is feminine), but at the same time it symbolises Virgin Mary.



Do you therefore see dear reader that doubting the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is tantamount to doubting the "ever-virginity" of the Body of Christ, the inabolishability of His Church? Despite His promise that the "gates of Hades" shall not prevail against her?



The second question stems from our holy father and hierarch John Golden-Mouthed (Chrysostom) who would ask of the unbelievers:



"How could the one who gave birth to God accept to go with another man afterwards?"

[Ryan2010]

VOCAB

Theometor = from Theos = God and Meter = Mother. Mother of God. Note that Theotokos actually means God-bearing. This is the reason why we use both Theometor and Theotokos  for the Ever-Virgin Mary. English-speaking Orthodoxy has incorporated the second word as it stands but most usually use the words "Mother of God" periphrastically to refer to the title Theometor.



truly = There is a subtle yet important point that we wish to make here. The notion of "consummation" of wedding in a contemporary sense of the word -- where matrimonial relations are needed as proof that the couple are truly married or else the marriage can be legally annulled -- does not exist in Orthodoxy and is alien to the realm of Christianity. Proof of this are Mary's parents, St. Joachim and St. Anne. According to the Tradition, they were staying celibate, even after they got married. The only time they would need to come to matrimonial relations would be in order to have a child. But St. Anne was barren. For this reason they were staying chaste, for they had reached high levels of holiness and did not need to seek comfort in the flesh. Of course, couples within wedlock are blessed to have such relations, especially if one or the other party cannot do without these, and the Church Fathers ask couples not to create problems if one party wants to have such relations and the other one feels they have moved closer to God and do not feel the needs of the flesh as much. However, the point is that the couples are not required to have these (away from having children). Thus, today if a couple join in Holy Matrimony and one of the two is barren or perhaps the woman has already reached her menopause, they are not required to have matrimonial relations in order to have their marriage "consummated" but - provided they both agree on this peacefully - they are allowed to stay pure and live together more like brothers and sisters than a couple. Chastity and purity are likened by God. Note also that St. Ieronymus informs us in his writings against Helvidius that there were women in those times who lived pious lives together with their husbands, more like brothers and sisters, and closer to the idea of chastity rather than that of marriage. This is therefore another point where various Protestant denominations deviate from the path of Orthodoxy. One of the reasons God chose for Virgin Mary to come from St. Joachim and St. Anna is because He saw in them the greatest purity in a couple. Indeed, they only came in matrimonial relations once, in order to have Virgin Mary (after they had been informed of this by God). "Had God met such purity in another couple, He might have even brought Virgin Mary and the plan of our salvation even earlier", mentions Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, by adding with humility that "this is what his logismos" tells him. Purity is a great virtue. For this reason exactly, Virgin Mary is called as All-Pure. Not because she had been born free from the consequences of the Forefatherly Sin of Adam and Eve -- the Immaculate Conception dogma being a recent innovation and blasphemy of the Papists -- but because her parents were great in purity and had stayed pure throughout their lives. Therefore the word "truly" is used here with more than a pinch of salt. Strictly speaking, the use of the word "truly" here is wrong. Of course, we do not need to worry about talking of "true marriage" or otherwise henceforth; since after all the Virgin was never married to Joseph but only stayed betrothed to him. We discuss betrothal or engagement below.



purity = Notice that the Fathers of the Church and the hymnographer often call Virgin Mary as άμωμος i.e. immaculate, in the sense of pure, but never in the sense of the Roman Catholic notion of "ever-immaculate" which in this case means "free from the sickness of sin since birth" ( i.e. free from what the Orthodox would call the Ancestral or Forefatherly Sin of Adam and Eve). This is a recent innovation of Papism (19th century). The terms for all-pure are πάναγνη or άμωμος but not in the Papal sense who want her purity to be since birth, and thus call her "the Great Exemplar" making her in fact the ... Great Exception of humanity! What a blasphemy! She was all-pure because of the purity of her parents, because she stayed pure inside the temple until she became engaged to Joseph at the age of 16. She is also immaculate in the sense of becoming free from the possibility of sin but only from the moment she accepted the Archangel's Evangelism, namely after her Annunciation when she was mystically cleansed henceforth. Beforehand she had her shortcomings, of course, like every person; although her staying in the Temple ensured her purity. But she was definitely born carrying the Forefatherly Sin that all human beings carry. This is important as it relates to Christology and not because Orthodoxy is interested in a detailed examination of the shortcomings of the Theotokos during her tender years! At any rate, the Orthodox are not trying to find out when she became pure but they want to ensure that the heavenly purity met an earthly purity who also had a free will to make choices thus becoming the human that became our heavenly ladder. Otherwise salvation was not realised in the face of Christ! After all, this way she would justly receive a Victor's Crown, for a purity that she chose by her free will, and not for one that was chosen for her. In that case, God is being unfair, giving her a crown for something she does not deserve because she cannot sin, whereas the rest of us are born with the Ancestral Sin. Also, her words would be void of any significance were she born sinless: her acceptance of the Archangel's invitation would not be anything important since she cannot "go wrong"! In fact, this terrible blasphemy of the Papists makes her in some sense equal to God (for how can death claim the one who was born without sin? And if she saved mankind this way doesn't this make her into some sort of Coredemptrix? The Fatima Cult is pushing for such a very result today among the Papal Church!) Apart from all this, we should not forget to make the following observation: according to the Orthodox Tradition, Panagia did not simply stay in the temple gazing at the Cherubim sculptures to pass the time, waiting for her ... calling! She worked hard through ascesis to cleanse herself and reach the stage of theosis. She worked very hard to achieve this through God's grace. Apart from her blessed upbringing, her great humility and hard ascesis, her tears, her sweat, her ascetic labours and her trials; these are some of the reasons that eventually helped her cultivate the whole spectrum of virtues in order for her to become the most glorified (theumen) person in the History of Mankind!



undisputed = Apart from Helvidius, during the crucial time period we contain Ecclesiastical History (first three centuries) there were others who individually doubted the ever-virginity of the Mother of God. However, they were relatively few in numbers and never even formed a substantial opinion in the Church, let alone form some heresy. The Consciousness of the Church was always unanimous on the issue of Ever-Virginity. Individuals that are away from the Church and hold various individual weird or ignorant opinions have existed at all times. We always examine here the Consciousness of the Church, not various individual opinions. Even Helvidius' words matter little by themselves, which is evidently seen by the way Ieronymus writes to him. They are important to us however because they provide us with the Consciousness of the Church through Post-Apostolic times. The people, in other words, who objected to the ever-virginity were the ignorant people of those times; in the same way that today people who are "loose" Orthodox or heterodox, may know little about the doctrines of the Church and claim some ridiculous things. For example, a friend of mine once thought that "Forerunner" and "John the Baptist" were different people! This does not mean that one has to answer to every little ignorant thing we hear on the street. Had he persisted, however, and was I asked to write something to him, I would probably have used a tone similar to that of Ieronymus; essentially "are you out of your mind, my friend? How can you be so criminally ignorant on such a basic thing?" The first time we had a dispute on the Ever-virginity issue was much later, outside the time period of main concern here, during the difficult years of Iconoclasm, when these heretics combined their efforts against the holy icons with objections to monasticism and ever-Virginity appearing indirectly. Apart from the countless miracles we have that prove beyond any doubt to the Christian the heresy of their claims on their main objection against the icons (we shall bring a few such examples in our Miracles section), it is worthy of note that their heresy was proclaimed as such in the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Christianity. The first serious objection specifically and directly aimed against Ever-virginity, arose with the advent of the Protestants in the 16th century who had of course already abolished celibacy, a virtue that none of them supported, let alone brought to spiritual fruition, to this very day. This is something that should seriously puzzle them.



betrothal = The koine Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and Righteous Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused" and nowhere is it mentioned that they were married. A betrothal gives all the responsibilities of a marriage without the marital privileges and they would have sinned had they succumbed to marital relations with one another. This Rite continued into the Christian Church. In the early (Orthodox) Church we still had the Rite of Betrothal -- the Christian "updated" version of course -- and, due to the fact that this Christian Engagement had always been taken very seriously by the Church, it was considered an important and integral part of marriage as it led up to marriage -- even if the two parties did not end up in marriage. Eventually, the Christian Church joined this Rite to the Sacrament of Matrimony for practical purposes. And like the ancient Jewish Betrothal Rite, the engaged parties are required not to have matrimonial relations before (the Christian now) Matrimony. As we mentioned above, both in the New Testament language and to this day in Greece, the common word for "husband" (ανήρ) is simply the word for "man". It is easy to see, therefore, how it was also used for "betrothed", just as in informal contemporary English "her man" can refer to a wide variety of relationships. For example, in St. Matthew 1:16 the Greek text says "Joseph the άνδρα of Mary" and almost all translations refer to "Joseph the husband of Mary"; but in actuality it says "Joseph the man of Mary". Next, St. Matthew clarifies in verse 18 that they were betrothed. So Joseph is referred here as Virgin Mary's "fiance", using contemporary terminology, and not "husband". In the above discussion we shall also use, apart from the words "fiance" and "fiancee", the expression "married in the law" for "betrothal". In other words, the statements "Joseph was Virgin Mary's fiance", "Joseph was married to Virgin Mary in the law" and "Joseph was Mary's husband in the law" are all equivalent. The plus of using expressions with the words "in the law" after them is that they can be placed in a one-to-one correspondence with other legal issues, such as for example the fact that "Joseph was Jesus' father in the law". Now we can see why we also used the term "truly married" to indicate matrimonial relations above: for then it could also mean that Joseph might be "truly" the father of Jesus, in some sense, especially if we take the brothers to mean "true" brothers (flesh brothers of Jesus). Why? Because he is mentioned as "father" of Jesus in the same way that these "brothers" are mentioned as such. But of course, then we are on a slippery slope to hell. Our terminology aims to help the reader see more clearly the terrible blasphemies that can result from such erroneous beliefs and how important it is to stay put to True Dogma.



fiance = By this word we shall indicate the male who would be betrothed to someone in those days, as it helps the reader identify the difference between "married man" and "engaged man". Similarly for fiancee. Of course, engagement today usually means a promise and an exchange of rings. This is not the same as the betrothal of those times (which was continued in Christianity, being conducted before the wedding ceremony in Orthodox temples). Orthodox couples may of course exchange rings and promise to be married. However if they wish to be engaged formally, they need a priest to conduct the Rite of Betrothal. For practical reasons, this has been shifted today right before the Rite of Matrimony, to ensure that "loose" Orthodox Christians who may not have got engaged can proceed to marry (for Betrothal is required to be conducted first). In a sense then, Orthodox Christians today get engaged and married at the same time.

[winsome]

BETROTHAL vs. MARRIAGE


We cannot stress enough the point that the Holy Bible does not claim that Virgin Mary was ever given to Joseph in marriage. The Holy Bible speaks only of betrothal. The usage of the words γυνή and ανήρ in Greek are not used to exclusively mean "wife" and "husband", but also "woman" and "man", respectively, words that can be used equally to indicate (apart from the obvious gender attribution) the "fiance" or his "fiancee" respectively (i.e. the ones that were betrothed or "engaged" to each other)......................

My understanding of the Jewish marriage customs is that the marriage happened in two stages. Firstly the betrothal - not the same as our engagement, but was a binding commitment – and was considered in marriage terms.  Hence Matthew says Joseph decided to divorce Mary.

The second stage, which took place a year later for a virgin, was the "coming together

[Ryan2010]

BETROTHAL vs. MARRIAGE


We cannot stress enough the point that the Holy Bible does not claim that Virgin Mary was ever given to Joseph in marriage. The Holy Bible speaks only of betrothal. The usage of the words γυνή and ανήρ in Greek are not used to exclusively mean "wife" and "husband", but also "woman" and "man", respectively, words that can be used equally to indicate (apart from the obvious gender attribution) the "fiance" or his "fiancee" respectively (i.e. the ones that were betrothed or "engaged" to each other)......................

My understanding of the Jewish marriage customs is that the marriage happened in two stages. Firstly the betrothal - not the same as our engagement, but was a binding commitment – and was considered in marriage terms.  Hence Matthew says Joseph decided to divorce Mary.

The second stage, which took place a year later for a virgin, was the "coming together

[pointmade]

The earliest mention of the perpetual virginity of Mary is in the Protevangelium of James, an Apocryphal Gospel pf the second century, which treats of the childhood of Mary and Jesus. In clumsy imitation of Matthew and Luke it describes angelic visitations,hymns of nativity, etc., surrounding the birth of Mary of Joachim and Anna. At the age of three she danced in the temple and was "nurtured" as a dove in the temple and received food from the hand of an angel" until twelve years old, when she was betrothed to Joseph, a widower eighty years old, who had a number of sons by a former marriage.

This piece of fiction represents the beginning of centuries of effort to explain away the obvious meaning of "the brethren of the Lord' and kindred passages in the New Testament. Jerome (A.D. 377) that "the brethren of Jesus" mentioned in the New Testament were the cousins of Jesus---the children of Mary of Clopas, sister of Jesus' mother and wife of Alphaeus. The council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) definitely asserted the perpetual virginity of Mary.

For sure, the sinlessness of Mary was unknown to early Christians. Augustine began cautiously to suggest it: "Who knows what power God might have given Mary to overcome sin?" When the Council of Lyons in the twelfth century sought to institute a festival in her honor, this idea became prevalent. Peculiar relations to the Godhead began to be affirmed of Mary by some writers of Alexandria at the close of the third century. During the next century the phrase, "Mother of God" became common. Cyril of Alexander in the council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) speaks of the "Holy Virgin--Mother of God--the spotless treasurer-house of virginity." About this time prayer began to be offered through Mary and to Mary. Damian speaks of Mary a "the most exalted of creatures, now deified and endowed with all power in heaven and in earth and yet not forgetful of our race."

The place of simple dignity accorded Mary among the disciples at Pentecost should be her place in our hearts today--a recognition of her noble character and her wonderful example of faith and devotion, but towering over all is the word of Christ: "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my mother." The Gospels present Mary as a mere woman as far removed from Jesus as all of sinful humanity. But what a noble woman was Mary of Nazareth! We are reminded of the gracious tribute of Carlyle to his mother: "If I could have chosen my mother out of all the women in the world, I would have chosen you."

[Ryan2010]

This piece of fiction represents the beginning of centuries of effort to explain away the obvious meaning of "the brethren of the Lord' and kindred passages in the New Testament. Jerome (A.D. 377) that "the brethren of Jesus" mentioned in the New Testament were the cousins of Jesus---the children of Mary of Clopas, sister of Jesus' mother and wife of Alphaeus. The council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) definitely asserted the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Hm.  The problem here is that of sola scriptura, again.  One, you can believe either way and even if either were wrong, could make the scriptures to say what you want them to say.  To say that just because in the middle of the first century The Chuch began to defend the ever-virginity of Mary, the Theotokos, does not then mean that it is obvious that this "defending" is instead an "innovation".  The bias against her virginity is a strange one here. 

There are so many factors in favor of Mary having preserved all chastity (not merely a "sexual" connotation).  There are cultural, moral, community oriented and even biblical factors that, if you don't juxtapose modernity onto the Virgin, favors Mary's perpetual virginity. 

The fact that Jews abstain after God manifests himself is one cultural factor.  The fact that Jesus gave Mary to St. John, the beloved another.  It is not only customary within the Jewish culture to give your mother to the care of the eldest surviving brother but also, if this does not occur, it is considered a scandal on both the family and the slighted brother. 

The other issue that would be moral is that if you imagine you were betrothed to Mary and she gave birth to Jesus, who is God, how could you then?  The very womb that contained the uncontainable God.  God-fearing Jews, such as Joseph and Mary didn't have a modern day lack of respect for such things.  Again, we can't juxtapose modernity onto our ancient brothers and sisters. 

Above, where it says, " the beginning of centuries of effort to explain away the obvious meaning of "the brethren of the Lord' and kindred passages in the New Testament," only reveals the writer's bias and has provided nothing other than their private suspicions about Mary argued from the silence of scripture. 

Again, in order to take a "sola scriptura" approach to Mary's virginity, if the person is honest, means that they are forced to say that the verses, cultural conditions and customs etc. provided can only be considered inconclusive. 

You can not without doubt prove that Mary didn't remain ever-virgin using scripture unless you interpret outside the bounds of sola scriptura.  If the reader simply desires her not to be ever-virgin, then they will simply twist and turn the verses, cast a cynical eye on history and then launch their initiative from the pulpit of their own opinion.  However, if they are wrong, I wouldn't want to stand in front of the Lord as he listens to a person's conviction against his mother's chastity. 

Are we saying that because to the best of our knowledge the first written arguments against those who refuted Mary's perpetual virginity were in the middle of the first century and therefore are an innovation?  Or are we pandering to people suspicion that this is merely a mixing of both gnosticism and Christian thought?  Either way, this requires bias from the onset. 

I am sure we have all endured the confident Atheist when he tries to prove that Jesus is just a collection of myths.  He will bring up Horus and or Zeus and all of these revisionary histories that, just as stated above, "are obvious" to him. 

For sure, the sinlessness of Mary was unknown to early Christians. Augustine began cautiously to suggest it: "Who knows what power God might have given Mary to overcome sin?"

Again, you say, "for sure".  However, there is nothing being offered other than your offering scant details and then "characterizing" them in order to give an effect.  I am not talking about the immaculate conception here, as I am Orthodox and reject the doctrine.  I also understand that this doctrine is influenced (I suspect) by Augustine's view on original sin.  However, again, I could be wrong.  Because I defer interpretation away from myself and adhere to the authority of The Church, I adhere to the Orthodox teaching on the Theotokos. 

What is the point of saying, "Augustine began cautiously to suggest it"?  Are we trying to paint a picture of someone who schemes?  Do we know blessed Augustine's heart?  I don't agree with his focus on the legality of Original Sin but I wouldn't attempt to color him as someone who purposefully manipulated truth into a lie.  Why would Blessed Augustine "cautiously suggest"?  To what end? 

When the Council of Lyons in the twelfth century sought to institute a festival in her honor, this idea became prevalent.

Again, if you left out the conditioned commentary this would simply read, "the Council of Lyons instituted a festival in her honor".   Part of the reason a lot of protestants seem to misunderstand early Christianity is because they often don't understand that these festivals are often ways of teaching something considered to have always been known by the community.  It's like saying, "because Christians "invented" the Trinity in the third century the Trinity is false.  Also, it wasn't until they put prayers to the Holy Trinity in their liturgies in the fourth century that this is how they spread this false teaching and this is how it became popular". 

Peculiar relations to the Godhead began to be affirmed of Mary by some writers of Alexandria at the close of the third century. During the next century the phrase, "Mother of God" became common. Cyril of Alexander in the council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) speaks of the "Holy Virgin--Mother of God--the spotless treasurer-house of virginity." About this time prayer began to be offered through Mary and to Mary. Damian speaks of Mary a "the most exalted of creatures, now deified and endowed with all power in heaven and in earth and yet not forgetful of our race."

You agree with Nestorius?  You don't see the term, "Mother of God" as being a Christological issue? 

Also, when he calls her "most exalted" do you not understand that Mary offered her flesh of her own free-will to the Son that God might become incarnate among us?   More than this, do you not see her as a pivotal person in the narrative of the salvation of man?  It was Eve that offered the fruit of the forbidden tree to man and through man's taking of it, all humanity fell.  However, here we have Mary who offers the fruit of her womb to man and through man's partaking of him who was raised, all humanity can also be raised.

If Eve was disciplined for her actions and all humanity with her and her husband, how much more the reward for having reversed what Adam and Eve fell from...   

And when he says that she is now "deified and endowed with all power in heaven" do you know that he is talking about theosis?  This is not peculiar to Mary alone my friend but is the point of being TRULY human - made in His image. 

The place of simple dignity accorded Mary among the disciples at Pentecost should be her place in our hearts today--a recognition of her noble character and her wonderful example of faith and devotion, but towering over all is the word of Christ: "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my mother."

You then conclude by trying to persuade us to change two thousand years worth of Christian practice and replace it with "simple dignity should be her place".  Again, are you not aware that you are acting as your own pope based on your own cognitive abilities to "reason" what the scriptures alone say?  What authority do YOU have to "institute" your own opinion on practice, let alone if God has raised her as we say she has been raised, then you will have us ignore what God has done?  Is there any one thing that God has done that is not for our good and salvific? 

To lower and reduce that which God Himself may have raised and deified without any fear of God whatsoever present is suspicious.  You appeal to loose cognitive details that smell and taste like logic but then expect us to totally reject tenants of our deposit of faith? 

How should we practice, "simple dignity".  For now on whenever Mary comes up we simply say, "oh, she was a blessed lady but no on special".  ??    How should we practice?  If God placed you in authority over us what would you have us do in order to show this simple dignity?  Perhaps we should not ever show it but instead just "place it in our hearts".  How do we do this?  This sounds like mere sentiment.

The Gospels present Mary as a mere woman as far removed from Jesus as all of sinful humanity. But what a noble woman was Mary of Nazareth! We are reminded of the gracious tribute of Carlyle to his mother: "If I could have chosen my mother out of all the women in the world, I would have chosen you."

Noble? 

Definitions of noble on the Web:

    * baronial: impressive in appearance; "a baronial mansion"; "an imposing residence"; "a noble tree"; "severe-looking policemen sat astride noble ...

    * of or belonging to or constituting the hereditary aristocracy especially as derived from feudal times; "of noble birth"

    * having or showing or indicative of high or elevated character; "a noble spirit"; "noble deeds"

    * Lord: a titled peer of the realm


I think you will find that both Orthodox and Catholic agree that she IS noble.  She is not part of the Holy Trinity and from the Orthodox perspective, we too believe she is need of the Saviour.  My only point in posting on this subject is that we shouldn't juxtapose modernity onto the texts and you can't expect to sway Catholics or Orthodox with poor revisionary histories and private interpretations based on personal hunches. 

Please take another look at the Theotokos.  Re-consider Nestorius errors. 


God bless

[pointmade]

Ryan2010: "I think you will find that both Orthodox and Catholic agree that she IS noble.  She is not part of the Holy Trinity and from the Orthodox perspective, we too believe she is need of the Saviour.  My only point in posting on this subject is that we shouldn't juxtapose modernity onto the texts and you can't expect to sway Catholics or Orthodox with poor revisionary histories and private interpretations based on personal hunches."

 
I certainly respect your opinion....I do respect and believe the Scriptures are inerrant. I read no where in the "apostles doctrine" where Mary is to be deified.
In Acts 1:14 she is numbered with the 120.

Matthew records the names of his brothers as James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. We see here in Matthew 13:55,  that those in Nazareth brought forth every item of trade (carpenter) and relationship ("son of Joseph and Mary)" by which they could confirm themselves in their conviction that Jesus was was simply human being like themselves. Matthew even records the "sisters" being known (v.56). James is recorded in Galatians 1:19; 2:9 as the Lord's brother. Paul does not  refers to the "James" in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 as being numbered with the apostles. Paul makes a distinction in 1 Cor. 9:5 that the "apostles, and brethren of the Lord was married, as well as "Cephas." No matter how you want to exegesis the text, Paul sees a difference between the apostles and the Lord's brother as James.
The Jude who wrote the epistle.....was he the Lord's brother? He refers to himself as "the brother of James" in his epistle (v. 1). We know Jude was not an apostle. For sure, his epistle was a warning against false teachers.

None of the apostles wrote about a "Pope," nor that Mary was to be "deified". Paul would say, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which WE (apostles) have preached unto you let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). The basic tenet of Catholicism and Protestantism is that mankind inherited Adam's sin. The Scripture teaches that "all have sinned and fallen short of the character of God. Jesus came into the world to "seek and save the which is lost." not to deify any human being.

[Ryan2010]

I do respect and believe the Scriptures are inerrant. I read no where in the "apostles doctrine" where Mary is to be deified.

You will find that both Orthodox and Catholics believe that the Holy scriptures are inerrant.  Though you might not see in the Holy Scriptures that Christians are to be "deified" it is certainly there.  However, again, you have to understand what it means when it is said that we are to be "deified".  It is not saying that we become God in the sense that we supplant Him or even become Him.  To be more literal, it means, "like" God.  But not just "like" him by mimicking him but that we partake of his divine nature.  This is found in both the NT and the OT and the ancient Christians believed that "theosis" or as you call it, "deification" is the purpose of Christian life. 

This also relates to the incarnation and the salvific properties of every moment of Jesus life on earth ministry. 

It is said that God became man so that man might become by grace what God is by nature.  This is "theosis". 

We are to "be" holy just as He is Holy.  We are partakers in His divine nature.  And Christ says much when he says:

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ?

There are of course many many other verses and passages that touch on and are part of an organic whole as to this "theosis" and we can chat more about this if you want.   

Theosis also can be found in the story of Adam and Eve just prior to the fall of humanity.  While in Orthodoxy we don't have or teach, "Original Sin" we do however have what The Church calls, "Ancestral Sin".  Blessed Augustine was mistaken when he put emphasis on the legal status of "fallen man". 

Blessed Augustine taught and believed that all humanity inherited "legal guilt" in their DNA as a result of the fall of humanity.  In Orthodoxy it is taught that what we inherit is not a legal status but a propensity toward sin.  This is important in a proper understanding of the incarnation because in the West under the influence of Blessed Augustine's teachings (which are found in most protestant teachings) you might believe that the only reason Christ became incarnate was to become a sacrifice for "legal guilt".  It also colors the way you understand God's communion with Adam and Even in the garden. 

Adam and Eve were in communion with God prior to the fall.  This we all agree on.  However, when you put focus on "legal guilt" then Adam and Eve's sole purpose seems to be on preserving this legal status instead of being perfected, conformed in the image of the Son, who is THE image in which ALL mean were made. 

For Orthodox, theosis helps us remember that the reason Christ died was only the beginning.  Christ's sacrifice wasn't merely to allow us back into the garden but that we might re-enter the garden and continue on the path that Adam and Eve were on - to eat from the tree of life. 

When God says that Adam and Eve could eat from any plant in the garden and that those plants were for their "flesh" it's not unlike saying "you are what you eat".  For they too were "plants" in that they needed to be watered, receive the Light and continue to grow.  They were FREE to eat from any plant in the garden. 

It is Orthodox belief that even if Adam and Eve had not eaten the forbidden fruit that the Son of God would still have become incarnate that by becoming that which we are might be brought to fruition - theosis. 

This is the fruit of "theosis" in regards to ALL humanity - those who have been considered approved - those who have become what God meant all humans to become:

Matthew 13:43
Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

We are not saying that Mary "is" God or has become a "god" but that the same light that is Christ Himself, shines in her.  Mary herself has obtained "theosis".  Neither is it Orthodox belief that she is the only person to have reached this and neither will she be the last because this is the destination that awaits all those that have been found to belong to Him.

Theosis is pretty much non-existent in the West but if you study you will find that early Christians understood that denial of self, pouring one's self out that Christ's light might illuminate us and that those who come in contact with us, will in fact have come in contact with a person who ceases to exist.  Our goal is that it is not US who live but Christ who lives in us.  It is Christ who IS the source of all life and if by God's grace, we can humble ourselves then we truly can do His perfect Will on earth. 

In Acts 1:14 she is numbered with the 120.

Matthew records the names of his brothers as James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. We see here in Matthew 13:55,  that those in Nazareth brought forth every item of trade (carpenter) and relationship ("son of Joseph and Mary)" by which they could confirm themselves in their conviction that Jesus was was simply human being like themselves. Matthew even records the "sisters" being known (v.56). James is recorded in Galatians 1:19; 2:9 as the Lord's brother. Paul does not  refers to the "James" in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 as being numbered with the apostles. Paul makes a distinction in 1 Cor. 9:5 that the "apostles, and brethren of the Lord was married, as well as "Cephas." No matter how you want to exegesis the text, Paul sees a difference between the apostles and the Lord's brother as James.
The Jude who wrote the epistle.....was he the Lord's brother? He refers to himself as "the brother of James" in his epistle (v. 1). We know Jude was not an apostle. For sure, his epistle was a warning against false teachers.

This has been argued about for a long time.  Here's a link to a good RCC apologetic blog wherein a lot of if not all of this is addressed: 

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/mary-blessed-virgin-index-page.html

Bookmark that.  Though I am not Roman Catholic, this blog helps me see a more accurate reflection of Roman Catholic thought and I often find that the reason I misunderstand the Catholic perspective is because they have a much different understanding and approach than I am used to.  Sometimes, it seems, the Catholics are saying the same thing the Orthodox are saying but coming at it from a different perspective altogether.  The more I talk to protestants about these issues, I find the same is true also. 

None of the apostles wrote about a "Pope," nor that Mary was to be "deified". Paul would say, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which WE (apostles) have preached unto you let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). The basic tenet of Catholicism and Protestantism is that mankind inherited Adam's sin. The Scripture teaches that "all have sinned and fallen short of the character of God. Jesus came into the world to "seek and save the which is lost." not to deify any human being.

Again, you seem to be looking at blurred lines.  All Pope means is father or something like that in Latin (I'm sure a Catholic will tell us what "pope" means).  For Orthodox, we do not believe that the Roman Catholic Pope has the reach and extent of authority that Roman Catholics believe he has.  The way we view the successor of St. Peter in Rome is that he and his successors are "first among equals" and he (a bishop, St. Peter even calls himself an "elder) served more like an "appeals" court.  While I don't want to get into the papacy, I do believe that there is strong support in the scriptures for St. Peter's unique role in the life of The Church.

In regards to deification I believe that if you studied what it meant to the early Church you will find that there are a lot of scriptural verses and passages that help to inform this reality. 

If you are able you can purchase a book called: Deification in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: A Biblical Perspective (Paperback) by Stephen Thomas.  It does a wonderful job of going through (in almost protestant fashion) the bible and doing a line by line study of Theosis.  There are LOADS of bible verses that might, even if you don't entirely agree, view those verses in a way you haven't before thought of.   

If you would like to download a free 46 page booklet about Theosis just copy and paste the link below.  On the page you will see where you can download the PDF.  So you will need a PDF reader.  If you have trouble with this just let me know (anyone reading this).  Just go to the page, choose the language you would like to read it in and download it (or open it depending on your pdf reader settings).

While the booklet is informative and a very clear teaching on Theosis, I must warn you that it does not approach "teaching" how you might be accustomed to.  It does not simply do a line by line of the bible/scientific approach.  Still, it will help you understand more clearly what the early Church fathers meant by deification/theosis:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx




God bless

[k-pappy]

You claim protestants are "misunderstood" because they believe what the Bible says.

Perpetual virginity is not a Biblical concept.  It was created by some early church fathers but is not based in the Bible.  In fact the church has gone to great lenths to "explain" scriptures that contradict the doctrine of perpetual virginity.

I do not think the fact that Mary had any other kids takes away from her standing in the least bit.  Peter, the first pope, was married.  I am sure he had "relations" with his wife, just as Joseph had "relations" with his.

Just my

Bond

[Ryan2010]

You claim protestants are "misunderstood" because they believe what the Bible says.

Perpetual virginity is not a Biblical concept.  It was created by some early church fathers but is not based in the Bible.  In fact the church has gone to great lenths to "explain" scriptures that contradict the doctrine of perpetual virginity.

I do not think the fact that Mary had any other kids takes away from her standing in the least bit.  Peter, the first pope, was married.  I am sure he had "relations" with his wife, just as Joseph had "relations" with his.

Just my

Bond

I don't think that protestants misunderstand because they believe what the Bible says but that they look at the bible within the vacuum of their own experiences (as do we all) and then they often wind up mistaking their own "impression" of what the bible MEANS to say and replaces with their own version of what they think the bible MEANS to say.  

If this wasn't so, we would have all the denominations of protestants that we do.  If the Baptists believed what the bible said and the Methodists believed what the bible said, we wouldn't have two different groups that believe in two contradictory things about what they believe the bible MEANS to say.  They would be united - of ONE MIND.  

And this is the problem.  We have thousands of competing and contradicting groups who are all convinced that their bible reads a different way from all the others.  And if one group runs into the other then the problem is often that the other group just can't read what the bible plainly says.  Problem is, both sides disagree and yet both sides think that it is plain as day.  

I adhere to the Orthodox Church and so believe that it is a matter of Authority.  It is not "my" interpretation or "your" interpretation that I give weight to.  It is The Church that has the authority to interpret the scripture.  Otherwise, the bible just becomes something I can make to say what I wish.  

I find it not always easy but I listen to The Church.

Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.



God bless


P.S.  You are aware that all of the protestant reformers believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and also that Jesus IS Mary's only child, right? 

This isn't a RCC or Orthodox conspiracy.   

You'd think that people that knew the Blessed Mary might know whether or not she had other children.  St. John the Beloved probably took Mary to Ephesus later in life.   Perhaps one day we will find an ancient writing that might clear this up or change the picture entirely. 







God bless

[pointmade]

Ryan2010: "If this wasn't so, we would have all the denominations of protestants that we do.  If the Baptists believed what the bible said and the Methodists believed what the bible said, we wouldn't have two different groups that believe in two contradictory things about what they believe the bible MEANS to say.  They would be united - of ONE MIND.

I enjoy your mind set.... Actually, the Protestants vary very little when you get down to their doctrine. The basic tenet of all Protestism is "Holy Spirit regeneration," or they have had an "experience." You can trace their roots back to John Calvin (who speaks of a life changing "experience") who formulated his Institutes of the Christian Religion from Augustine (d. A.D. 430 , another man with a "experience.). Like today, shake a bush, and someone will fall out of it claiming to have seen a vision, heard a voice from God, etc., As you know as a Catholic, when a pope is elected the birds (Cardinals) in the nest have had a revelation. Like Protestant "Spirit filled" preachers who have fallen from grace....The Catholics have had their "Spirit filled" pedophile priests fall from the limb and the Archbishops keep on perching them back up in another tree....Tough on us common old "Christians" to keep up with the elect without a score card.   

"Calvinism" is not exactly equivalent to "Reformed theology," but is rather a part of this more comprehensive system of theology. "Calvinism" usually refers to the specific doctrine of God, sin, and salvation as included within Reformed theology. Though most modern-day Calvinists DO teach "faith-only," this has not always been associated with this type of theology. E.g., Augustine and Luther both adamantly taught that baptism is essential for salvation, with few exceptions. Also, many of those who hold a "faith only" view are NOT Calvinist, e.g., Wesleyans and many Baptists. I note that Calvinists disagree among themselves on some points, e.g., limited atonement, whether reprobation is parallel to election, and whether God loves all people or only the elect.

Calvinism Is a DETERMINISM. "Determinism" refers to any philosophy that teaches that EVERY event, including human decisions and acts, is ultimately determined or caused by an outside, all-controlling force. Calvin says, "Men can accomplish nothing except by God's sacred command, they cannot be deliberating accomplish anything except what he has already decreed with himself and determined by his secret direction" (ICR, I.xviii.l). I find that Catholicism and Protestantism have moved salvation from the "mind" of God to the "heart" of man. This, I believe started with Augustine coming up with the "city of God on earth." Not to expand on this at this time......I am still wondering how Jim Jones got those misguided souls to drink the kool-aid in Jonestown.

[Rob, PGK]

Did you just try to slip in a dig about the pedophilia scandal in a thread that has nothing to do with that?