Dear Biblical Literalists

[tzor]

So Tzor you are a literalist then on one hand with the ten matters...

Why do you say that? How can I be a literalist when I don't even know the literal words?

[jgordon1111]

So Tzor you are a literalist then on one hand with the ten matters...

Why do you say that? How can I be a literalist when I don't even know the literal words?

And yet you cited that in particular,why

[tzor]

So Tzor you are a literalist then on one hand with the ten matters...

Why do you say that? How can I be a literalist when I don't even know the literal words?

And yet you cited that in particular,why

I was responding to your quote ...

Now back to yoshi, another thing that leaps out is as far as I am aware the only thing God ever actually wrote (supposedly) was the ten commandments, which Moses in his great audacity knowing the mind of God took upon himself to smash, never to be seen again.everything else is inspired by whatever people choose to believe, in hopes that what they do is not in vain. Thus explaining literal and interpetive views of religious texts, it is all about which you believe is gonna save you,oddly enough

With the argument that we may not have the actual record of what was actually written on the tablets. I really didn't get into details, but we really don't even know the language that was used on those tablets but it would have been still based on the Egyptian Hieroglyphs. You're not going to pack a lot of letters onto a tablet, especially if you believe that the two tablets were actually two identical copies one for each party to the covenant.

Of course if you really want to know, there are, supposedly, a copy of the two tablets, also written by God, preserved in the Ark of the Covenant. Last time I checked, this was supposed to be in Ethiopia. That's what the priests of Ethiopia say, at least.

[jgordon1111]

So Tzor you are a literalist then on one hand with the ten matters...

Why do you say that? How can I be a literalist when I don't even know the literal words?

And yet you cited that in particular,why

I was responding to your quote ...

Now back to yoshi, another thing that leaps out is as far as I am aware the only thing God ever actually wrote (supposedly) was the ten commandments, which Moses in his great audacity knowing the mind of God took upon himself to smash, never to be seen again.everything else is inspired by whatever people choose to believe, in hopes that what they do is not in vain. Thus explaining literal and interpetive views of religious texts, it is all about which you believe is gonna save you,oddly enough

With the argument that we may not have the actual record of what was actually written on the tablets. I really didn't get into details, but we really don't even know the language that was used on those tablets but it would have been still based on the Egyptian Hieroglyphs. You're not going to pack a lot of letters onto a tablet, especially if you believe that the two tablets were actually two identical copies one for each party to the covenant.

Of course if you really want to know, there are, supposedly, a copy of the two tablets, also written by God, preserved in the Ark of the Covenant. Last time I checked, this was supposed to be in Ethiopia. That's what the priests of Ethiopia say, at least.

Ahh so then what you suggest is, that the Hebrews, may have just spouted whatever crap they chose to and everyone has just followed along because it seems reasonable that's what God wants us to do? Sorry sounds forgive the pun (fishy) to me

[Phatscotty]

So what's the deal Doomer? You call me out, I let you off the hook and gently remind you there is no way in thee blue hell I deserve to be called out, even opining your genitals are yummy. You go right back to accusing me of the same thing, I ask you for an example, you either have not (more like could not) provided a single one, and now you are gonna follow me around and sport attitude against me and declare everything I say is bullshit... as if I am what you accused me to be? How about first you back-up your own assertion with an example, and if you can't then admit you are wrong and scratch your head and no doubt still declare me full of it. So far, 100% incorrectly calling me out here puts the bullshit is on you, and if you can't show me an example, that's double bullshit, and if you just ignore this and go on to declare me as full of it other places then that's triple lindy. Either apologize (or don't) and move on as I am willing to do with no hard feelings and perhaps pay more attention or deal with the fact you are crusading against me for being/doing something you can't show a single example of evidence to support your claim. If it's a faith-based claim, then you owe me ten hail Mary's.

[tzor]

Ahh so then what you suggest is, that the Hebrews, may have just spouted whatever crap they chose to and everyone has just followed along because it seems reasonable that's what God wants us to do? Sorry sounds forgive the pun (fishy) to me

No that's not what I suggested. So let's get down to some definitions.

Biblical literalism is a term used differently by different authors concerning biblical interpretation. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense", where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical". This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.

This gets difficult to explain with the ten commandments, but let's look at ideas of the law in general. The basic idea is that the law is explained through extrapolation and through expansion (a "ring fence" as it were to keep the observant from getting close to breaking the law). Thus the law against boiling a calf in its mother's milk, was extended to any meat with any dairy, and then even to the point of casual contact in the same meal. Thus if you have lamb, you can't put cream in your coffee.

Now consider the "ten" commandments. There are more than ten statements in both descriptions of the ten commandments. There are many different ways to parse the "ten commandments" to get them back down to ten and the differences are the cause of much argument and yelling. Assuming that the original 10 statements were in fact 10, and written on stone tablets, it makes sense that the two different accounts are extrapolations on those statements. The original argument that the written text commonly called the "ten commandments" are the literal words of God is therefore not quite accurate. That doesn't mean they were "made up."

[tzor]

New American Bible - Revised Edition - Introduction to Genesis ...

The Composition of the Book. For the literary sources of Genesis, see Introduction to the Pentateuch. As far as the sources of Genesis are concerned, contemporary readers can reasonably assume that ancient traditions (J and E) were edited in the sixth or fifth century B.C. for a Jewish audience that had suffered the effects of the exile and was now largely living outside of Palestine. The editor highlighted themes of vital concern to this audience: God intends that every nation have posterity and land; the ancestors of Israel are models for their descendants who also live in hope rather than in full possession of what has been promised; the ancient covenant with God is eternal, remaining valid even when the human party has been unfaithful. By highlighting such concerns, the editor addressed the worries of exiled Israel and indeed of contemporary Jews and Christians

How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation-flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. They added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient stories. Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious, the nature of sexual attraction and marriage, why there are many peoples and languages. Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.

Introduction to the Pentateuch

By the late nineteenth century, one theory of the sources of the Pentateuch had been worked out that proved acceptable in its main lines to the majority of scholars (apart from Christian and Jewish conservatives) then and now. It can be quickly sketched. In the premonarchic period of the Judges (ca. 1220–1020 B.C.), the twelve tribes had an oral form of their story from creation to the taking of the land. With the beginnings of monarchy in the late eleventh and tenth centuries, the oral material was written down, being known as the Yahwist account (from its use of the divine name Yhwh). Its abbreviation, “J,” comes from the German spelling of the divine name. In the following century, another account took shape in the Northern Kingdom (called E after its use of Elohim as a divine name); some believe the E source is simply a supplement to J. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722/721 B.C., the E version was taken to Jerusalem where it was combined with the J version to produce J-E. During the exile (conventionally dated 587–539 B.C.) or thereafter, an editor recast J-E to make it relevant for the exiled population. This editor is conventionally known as P (= Priestly) because of the chronological and ritual interests apparent in the work. P can also designate archival material and chronological notices. The audience for the Priestly edition no longer lived in the land and was deeply concerned about its survival and its claim on the land.

In the last three decades, the above consensus on the composition of the Pentateuch has come under attack. Some critics are extremely skeptical about the historical value of the so-called early traditions, and a few doubt there ever was a preexilic monarchy of any substance. For such scholars, the Pentateuch is a retrojection from the fourth or third centuries B.C. Other scholars postulate a different sequence of sources, or understand the sources differently.

How should a modern religiously minded person read the Pentateuch? First, readers have before them the most significant thing, the text of the Pentateuch. It is accurately preserved, reasonably well understood, and capable of touching audiences of every age. Take and read! Second, the controversies are about the sources of the Pentateuch, especially their antiquity and character. Many details will never be known, for the evidence is scanty. Indeed, the origin of many great literary works is obscure.

[tzor]

The thing that gives me the most difficulty with Catholicism is the Mariology. The Catholic Church has declared her comediatrix and coredemptrix. They teach that she was bodily assumed into heaven and remained a virgin for life. Then I think that I'm on LSD, because in a million different interpretations of the Bible, I would never have guessed any of this stuff.

The first thing you need to realize is that Latin can sometimes not be intuitive. After the fact it seems so blatantly obvious. But we tend to throw complex terms into the equation to mess things up.

Nothing is more annoying than the latin prefix "co" ... it means with. We assume equality, but the person who works with the pilot (the copilot) is not the equal to the pilot. (And they don't get near the same pay.)

Co-Mediatrix is one of those very annoying terms. The actual title is "Mediatrix" which again, doesn't help much, because it actually does come back to the "Co." Mary works "with" or "through" her son. SIOURCE

Mary’s title of mediatrix arises from her cooperation in the Incarnation and in the Redemption of mankind. Through her "yes" (Lk 1:38), she became the Theotokos (God-bearer), and, as the "New Eve," she is "the Mother of all living."

Irenaeus (A.D. 120–200) wrote, "As by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience" (Against Heresies, 3, 22, 19). Eve made the Fall possible, but Adam effected it; Mary made our Redemption possible (by consenting to bring the Savior into the world), but Jesus effected it.

God permitted the Redemption of mankind to depend on the free-will decision of a human being. Whether or not we would have a mediator was dependent on Mary’s "yes." Had there been no "yes" from Mary, there would have been no mediator. Thus the graces that come through Jesus may be said to come to us, in a secondary way, via Mary—not as the origin of the graces, but as a conduit. The Catholic Church always has taught that Jesus Christ alone redeemed mankind (neither Mary nor any other creature had the power to do so), and ultimately only through him are salvation and grace obtained.

Even we are mediators, in a lesser sense. The word mediator means someone who is a go-between. In 1 Timothy 2:5, which refers to Jesus as the "one mediator," the Greek word for "one" is heis, which means "first" or "primary" and does not denote something exclusive. In fact, we are all mediators when we pray for one another. As members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we all share in Christ’s role as mediator, but our efforts at being go-betweens "work" only because of what he has done.

Our mediating in no way diminishes the role of Christ as mediator; in fact, it glorifies the Father, because it is through Jesus that we can approach with confidence the throne of grace (Heb 4:14-16). How much more does Jesus give his mother Mary the privilege to be a participant in the distribution of grace!

It is interesting to note that Co-Redemptrix is not an official teaching. But let us consider the hierarchical nature of "Co." The term flows from the same argument as the former; Mary's acceptance of being the one to give birth to the redeemer gives her an subsidiary participation in that act of redemption.

[jgordon1111]

The thing that gives me the most difficulty with Catholicism is the Mariology. The Catholic Church has declared her comediatrix and coredemptrix. They teach that she was bodily assumed into heaven and remained a virgin for life. Then I think that I'm on LSD, because in a million different interpretations of the Bible, I would never have guessed any of this stuff.

The first thing you need to realize is that Latin can sometimes not be intuitive. After the fact it seems so blatantly obvious. But we tend to throw complex terms into the equation to mess things up.

Nothing is more annoying than the latin prefix "co" ... it means with. We assume equality, but the person who works with the pilot (the copilot) is not the equal to the pilot. (And they don't get near the same pay.)

Co-Mediatrix is one of those very annoying terms. The actual title is "Mediatrix" which again, doesn't help much, because it actually does come back to the "Co." Mary works "with" or "through" her son. SIOURCE

Mary’s title of mediatrix arises from her cooperation in the Incarnation and in the Redemption of mankind. Through her "yes" (Lk 1:38), she became the Theotokos (God-bearer), and, as the "New Eve," she is "the Mother of all living."

Irenaeus (A.D. 120–200) wrote, "As by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience" (Against Heresies, 3, 22, 19). Eve made the Fall possible, but Adam effected it; Mary made our Redemption possible (by consenting to bring the Savior into the world), but Jesus effected it.

God permitted the Redemption of mankind to depend on the free-will decision of a human being. Whether or not we would have a mediator was dependent on Mary’s "yes." Had there been no "yes" from Mary, there would have been no mediator. Thus the graces that come through Jesus may be said to come to us, in a secondary way, via Mary—not as the origin of the graces, but as a conduit. The Catholic Church always has taught that Jesus Christ alone redeemed mankind (neither Mary nor any other creature had the power to do so), and ultimately only through him are salvation and grace obtained.

Even we are mediators, in a lesser sense. The word mediator means someone who is a go-between. In 1 Timothy 2:5, which refers to Jesus as the "one mediator," the Greek word for "one" is heis, which means "first" or "primary" and does not denote something exclusive. In fact, we are all mediators when we pray for one another. As members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we all share in Christ’s role as mediator, but our efforts at being go-betweens "work" only because of what he has done.

Our mediating in no way diminishes the role of Christ as mediator; in fact, it glorifies the Father, because it is through Jesus that we can approach with confidence the throne of grace (Heb 4:14-16). How much more does Jesus give his mother Mary the privilege to be a participant in the distribution of grace!

It is interesting to note that Co-Redemptrix is not an official teaching. But let us consider the hierarchical nature of "Co." The term flows from the same argument as the former; Mary's acceptance of being the one to give birth to the redeemer gives her an subsidiary participation in that act of redemption.

Tzor an observation here, are you working on your law degree by chance?

[tzor]

This is the best definition for true Christianity and the worship of Mary, even the worship of images of Mary totally goes against this definition.

Warning, I'm about to "Greek" out all over you, because English sucks. This is a language where the respect given to God and that to Judges on a court of English Law is the same damn word.

To the faithful Catholic, Latreia is given to God and to God alone.

Latria is a theological term (Latin Latrīa, from the Greek λατρεία, latreia) used in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology to mean adoration, a reverence directed only to the Holy Trinity. Latria carries an emphasis on the internal form of worship, rather than external ceremonies.

That's it. Period. No one else gets it. Not even Mary.

Douleia, on the other hand, is given to all the holy ones.

From Latin dulia, from Ancient Greek δουλεία ‎(douleía, “slavery”), from δοῦλος ‎(doûlos, “slave”).

This distinction, written about as early as Augustine of Hippo and St Jerome, was detailed more explicitly by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, A.D. 1270: "Reverence is due to God on account of His Excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to dulia, and we shall speak of it further on"; in this next article St. Thomas Aquinas writes: "Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the Lordship of God. It is, moreover, a species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master, dulia being the Greek for servitude".

Mary's dulia (switching to latin for a moment) is so high it gets its own name, hyperdulia. But it is still dulia, and is definitely not latria.

Images are complex. A lot continues from misconceptions arising from the iconoclastic controversy. So let's go directly to the Greek (do not pass Rome, do not collect $200). Many Protestants love to cite small passages of scripture. In fact they get so good at this that they only need to mention the chapter and verse. (Let's ignore that chapters weren't really standardized until a thousand years after the Bible was written and verse numbers weren't even standardized until the printing press.) In strict Orthodoxy, "Icons" aren't "drawn" ... they are "written." They are designed to graphically illustrate theological concepts (the famous icon of the trinity, for example, is actually an icon of the three angels who visit Abraham) and they are designed through fasting and prayer. This is true, to a lesser extent in the west, although sometimes it can be hard to tell.

Given this, most images of the holy ones, should be given as much respect as your average Hymnal. It might seem odd to place the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe at the same level as "Amazing Grace" but both point us to the higher symbolism that is contained within. This leads in the Orthodox to the "iconostasis."

In Eastern Christianity an iconostasis (plural: iconostases) is a wall of icons and religious paintings, separating the nave from the sanctuary in a church.

[tzor]

Tzor an observation here, are you working on your law degree by chance?

NO but I was a physics major a long time ago.

[jgordon1111]

Tzor an observation here, are you working on your law degree by chance?

NO but I was a physics major a long time ago.

So then you might understand Einstein and Tesla threw an intentional curve ball, because humanity wasn't ready for the truth, and only in the 80's did hawking come close to realizing the truth,

Just my humour kicking in, sry
Back to previous programming

[PLAYER57832]

Wait a second?
There are Biblical LIteralists here?
And they post?
(And if the above two are true why aren't they in the Jesus Freaks group, I posted something there on Genesis back in December and haven't seen a single peep.)

But if you want to throw it back in the other direction. The whole principle underlying the false philosophical extension of Darwin's theory of evolution is that everything is the result of random chance. Once you factor how dangerous the universe is and the ever increasing number of parameters to allow for any significant land dwelling creature with the ability to gain intelligence, we tend to go from lucky, to damn lucky, to mind-blowing lucky, to (are you using a god damned infinite impossibility machine) lucky.

As Obi-Wan said, "In my opinion, there is no such thing as luck."

If you think my position is from lack of belief in the creator you would be incorrect.

And yes to your above statement, the odds of us being here by coincidence are incalculable.

But believing there's a GOD! is calculable?

No, but it is an option that cannot be excluded out of hand. That is really the whole crux.

I am not going through this whole thread, at least right now. However, I would suggest that this is the crux of the issue that folks like myself, and tzor and many others have with BOTH supposed "sides" to this argument.

Science without faith gets nowhere. We need belief, imagination and faith to envision something beyond that we can see. This comes in many ways, but religion is, historically very prominent. Claims that we have either religion OR science are just plain misguided. Without religion, there actually would not be much science.

Religion, to contrast, absolutely can exist without science. However, it is humanities need to find and seek answers that has brought us to both religion AND to science. In that way, religion and science are tied. Science is a way of categorizing and answering direct questions from observations, investigations, etc. Religion is a way of answering questions that don't necessarily seem to have immediate answers. So, while religion can exist without science, science can very much expand religion, give us greater understanding of God's processes and design, when viewed objectively.

The problem comes not from either science or religion, but when some people want to take their narrow vision and "make it fit" the "other". People who want to say that Genesis says a day, that a day must mean 24 hours/a rotation of the Earth put themselves into a box. People who say that they cannot accept anything not absolutely provable similarly put themselves into a box. True thinking and imagination, real intelligence requires acknowledging broader possibilities. Once you accept the chance of other possibilities, then we have room to respectfully debate the details.

As Tzor said ( paraphrasing slightly), there are miles and miles of difference ideas between these extremes. There are miles of room for folks who both fully believe in God AND who fully accept science. There is even room for folks who doubt either (but who are willing to entertain the possibilities).

[tzor]

So latria = proskuneo?

No, the former is internal, the later is external.

The question of "honor" is a bit more complex. It is the same ten commandments that commands us to worship God alone that commands us to honor mother and father. The fact that we are to love the Lord our God with whole heart and mind does not mean that we treat everyone else like shit. We keep in mind and memory of those who have gone before us, leading the way in faith. We keep in mind and memory of those who have died for that faith. We "honor" their memory as they are now a part of that "great cloud of witnesses."

[PLAYER57832]

This is the best definition for true Christianity and the worship of Mary, even the worship of images of Mary totally goes against this definition.

Also Protestant here, but have been taking some classes on Roman Catholicism because my husband is Roman Catholic. There is nuance and misunderstanding here.

Here is what my recent Classes on Roman Catholicism have said--
in the old Jewish tradition, the king's mother had the position of "Queen", not the king's wife. When commoners wanted to petition the king, they looked to her. They look to Jesus telling John (oops if I have the wrong disciple), who they say was Jesus cousin, to take care of his mother as proof of this, because if Jesus had had any siblings it would be a serious breach of propriety to have a cousin take care of the mother. So, prayers to Mary are prayers to the Queen who will then take them to the king, and get better attention because Mary is presenting them directly. Similarly, praying to the Saints is, to them, like asking a friend to add their prayers to yours. Also, they cite passages that say that the prayers of the righteous are stronger than that of ordinary sinners. So they beseech the saints to add their prayers on the behalf of the petitioner.

Per the virginity of Mary, I am still trying to find sources on that. Hahn -- a scholar who was Presbyterian and then converted to Roman Catholicism and has done several lectures on why Roman Catholicism is the more valid church mentioned some sources, but I found his actual description rather lacking in detail. (maybe Tzor can do better?.. like I said, I am not Roman Catholic).

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor.. are you familiar with Byzantine Roman Catholicism (maybe I have terms incorrect, but not talking Greek Orthodox here)?

Do you know where they split off, the history by chance? I am having a hard time researching and am thinking it may be that I have some of the terms incorrect?

[tzor]

Per the virginity of Mary, I am still trying to find sources on that. Hahn -- a scholar who was Presbyterian and then converted to Roman Catholicism and has done several lectures on why Roman Catholicism is the more valid church mentioned some sources, but I found his actual description rather lacking in detail. (maybe Tzor can do better?.. like I said, I am not Roman Catholic).

I'm you are talking about the notion of the virginity of Mary after Jesus. That's not as straightforward as you might imagine, even in Roman Catholic teaching. There is really a complete lack of solid information on the life of St. Joseph to begin with. It is hinted in non biblical sources such as the Protoevangelium of James that she had been devoted to the temple with a vow of virginity. This was cited by Origen in his writings.

I can give a number of examples of answers from Catholic answers: Mary Ever Virgin: explores the Protoevangelium and the writings of the early Church fathers. The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity: gives the argument that if Joseph did believe that the child was born of the Holy Spirit, then she belonged to God and not ton him. When Were Joseph and Mary Married: throws in an interesting and odd notion; the point that Mary's response to the angel is in the future tense ... which is odd as she was "betrothed" to Joseph at the time.

One final thought: When Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen, since I do not know man," the verb to be (Gr.-estai) is in the future tense. There is nothing here that would indicate she was thinking of the immediate. The future tense here most likely refers to… the future. The question was not how she could conceive immediately. The question was how she could conceive ever. The angel answered that question for her.

Finally one interesting link from EWTN THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives <(Zohar Hadash> 2:1; <Midrash Mishlei> 30, 105, <Pirke Rabbi Eliezer> 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the "Divine Presence") in the Torah <(Zohar re Gn> 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the <Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya)>. It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: "He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood" (Rabbi Eliezer in <Yebamoth> 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also <Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) >section< Evenhar-Ezer> 1:1,3,4). According to <Yebamoth> 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: "Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. "Man").

Nevertheless, "if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned" <(Skulkhan Arukh EH> 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: "with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth" <(Sotah> 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul <(Yebamoth> 63b). He was an outstanding scholar <(Kiddushin> 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness <(Berakoth> 57b, B.T.).

As the recipient of the great revelation that what was conceived in the womb of Mary, his betrothed, was of the Holy Spirit and that the Child to be born was destined to save His people from their sins, surely Joseph knew that he was called to take care of Mary and her Child, the Messiah, for the rest of his life, which is why the angel told him to take Mary as his wife. We may reasonable assume that Mary herself now shared with him all that the archangel Gabriel said to her. No less a Person than "the Son of God" (Lk 1:35) was to be entrusted to his care under the shelter of his humble home, now become the Holy of Holies. Jewish tradition mentions that, although the people had to abstain from sexual relations with their wives for only three days prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:15), Moses chose to remain continent the rest of his life with the full approval of God. The rabbis explained that this was so because Moses knew that he was appointed to personally commune with God, not only at Mount Sinai but in general throughout the forty years of sojourning in the wilderness. For this reason Moses kept himself "apart from woman," remaining in the sanctity of separation to be at the beck and call of God at all times; they cited God's command to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:28 <(Midrash Exodus Rabbah> 19:3 and 46.3). Again, we may be sure that Saint Joseph remained celibate all his life because throughout his married years he was in daily attendance and communication with Jesus, the incarnate Word of God.

None of this is convincing, especially the use of sources later not considered for the canon of scripture known as the Bible, but it was the basis for the early church's teaching on the matter.

[tzor]

Tzor.. are you familiar with Byzantine Roman Catholicism (maybe I have terms incorrect, but not talking Greek Orthodox here)?

A little. I can look the rest up. I think "splitting off" is a poor choice of words. The primary result of the east/west schism was the breaking of "communion" between the bishops of the east with that of Rome. This happened in the 11th century. When we get to the 15th century and the Council of Florence there was an attempt to bring communion back to the churches. Some eastern bishops agreed with the renewed communion and some did not. The ones who agreed who maintained the Byzantine rite because Byzantine Roman Catholics. This annoyed the bishops that didn't reestablish communion and bad blood continued until the 20th century with the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in 1993. Unfortunately even that document only made both sides (those in communion with Rome and those not in communion with Rome) even more angry with each other.

[PLAYER57832]

I won't even pretend to understand the filioque debate. Similarly, I find the arguments over the essence of God (during Nicaea) a "wtf" thing since how could any man profess to "know" the essence of the Father or the Holy Spirit or Jesus?

On that, we know the teachings and traditions that have been passed down.

[jgordon1111]

Anyone who can describe the essence - as in the stuff God is made of - needs to learn a lesson or twelve about humility.

See if you can wrap your noggin around this
God IS THE UNIVERSE, THE universe IS GOD