The Holy Family: Deadly Heresy

With all due respect, that’s pretty rich coming from someone who calls Mary Coredeptrix in salvation. Mary being the spouse of the Holy Ghost simply means she dedicated her virginity to God, giving no man any right to have a child by her loins because she had begotten the perfect child. To say this is calling the Mother of God God the Mother is not only dishonest, it’s willfully saying I have stated the opposite of what this whole post is about, being that Mary, although above all Angels, cannot be placed in a trinity like Christ is with the Father and the Spirit

Saint Christopher carried Christ on his shoulder. Pretty special, isn’t that.

Out of entire post only thing that took my attention was
I hope that you will stop using this retarded word.

Do you find “earthly” more accurate or better for rhetoric.

Created, Creation and so on.

Wait a second! Latins are heretics, what about Holy Family icons?

Did Jesus have any siblings? I had thought I read that somewhere.

They were either Jesus’ cousins or the children of Joseph from a previous marriage (the oldest texts, like the protoevangelion of James, says the later)

Attached: trashman.png (180x191, 49.85K)

A Catholic could just as easily say “wait the Orthodox are heretics! What about them saying Mary was born with Ancestral Sin?” I believe we have a long time until the East and the West unite, judging by the fact Russia might separate from Constantinople over Ukraine becoming autocephalous, showing not even the Eastern church has her act 100% together.

You believe that text is reliable?

In and of itself, probably not, but it is one of the earliest texts explaining what the church teaches about the Virgin.

yeah I have no idea why the iconoclasm of byzantium happened

...

For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed…” (Luke 1:46-48)
Last time I checked, being of a humble heart and following the commandments of God gives you grace, and a woman clothed with the sun does seem to fit with icons of Mary

Additionally, remember the Transfiguration.

Jesus Christ was clothed in white light, and in Revelation, the Woman was clothed in the Sun.

Fairly obviously symbolism here, Jesus Christ was clothed with the Authority of God, the Father and the Holy Spirit, a Dove.

Meanwhile, the Woman (called, Woman, by Our Lord at Cana) is clothed in a robe like the Sun, being the Son.

I just love it when people in 2018, after 2000 years of Christianity, start reinventing the wheel, claiming they've reached the level of truth that has not been reached by billions of Christians before them.

I love it when 1100 years after Christianity was started the bishop of Rome thought he was better then everyone else and basically God’s mouthpiece.

I love how people don't know and history and don't realize that the bishop of Rome claimed he was calling the shots since the time of the apostles. Even holding councils where they proclaimed their leadership position…

History for non-Catholics makes virtually no sense.

Hey, how's that new schism working for you?
Anyway, neither the OP nor the guy that he quotes are not some super theological minds that now have finally revealed the ultimate truth. The fact that you people have the audacity and courage to take it upon yourself to judge something that has been judged by hundreds of millions of faithful before you is just astounding.

It all boils down to you believing you're too stupid to read the Bible for yourself.
Twelve stars=twelve apostles=the CHURCH OF GOD. What did Mary have twelve of? Is it possible that John was seeing a spiritual vision and not a literal one?

God is not a respecter of persons. God is not a respecter of persons. Many people in all history have been blessed. Oh oh no how could I interpret the Bible for myself oh no I don't have Magisterium!

I don't even need to read the rest of this post to know it's going to be pure cancer

Matthew 1:18 says Mary and Joseph were espoused
"Look how similar they look! The painter must have wanted to make Mary and Joseph gods!" This is some Pastor Anderson tier logic

I'd only say that you should lay off the denominational shitflinging until you're more grounded in your faith. The quality of this board has drastically decreased recently because of stuff like this. Idk if Im the only one to notice

Claiming that Bible is clear to understand and individual interpretations are valid is just asinine when you literally have 4 billion of sola scriptura denominations. I'm sure Christ wanted that, I'm sure He wanted His faithful to be unable to agree on basic principles of salvation.

Everything is possible when you're treating the Bible like Macbeth in Shakespeare 101 and you're writing a shitty essay about it.

WHY do you think these people (4 billion denominations) have the holy spirit with them? God PROMISED the Spirit of TRUTH will abide with his sheep. Does the spirit of truth NOT abide with those who believe? Do you believe the promise of God?

Also, if the woman with 12 stars was Mary, why didn't it say so? Also, when was Mary persecuted? When Herod persecuted her. So, was John seeing a vision of the future that was really approximately 90 years prior? Did Mary have her crown of 12 stars when she was persecuted by Herod?

Am I making asinine interpretations? Or would you like to use your brain and consider what I am saying?

How am I saying I reached some ultimate truth? I’m simply saying the Holy Family icon does not make sense from the standpoint of orthodoxy and indeed can lead to antichristian doctrine. The fact you believe that millions do believe in it makes it true is about as valid as a Jew saying that because a majority of Jews rejected Christ when he was on earth makes their religon true.

Ultimately, mudslingling wont solve anything, and you will believe how you do at the end of the day, so honestly, I respect that you have had your say. Thank you for contributing, come back when you have more solid arguments.

Again, yes Mary and Joseph were legally husband and wife, but they never consummated that marriage and Joseph functions more as a guardian for Jesus and Mary. Perhaps me using bethrothed wasn’t the right word for Mary’s dedication to God, but as I said in , the Holy Spirit is called the metaphorical spouse of Mary.

If I were to create an icon of say Padre Pio in the pose of Christ as Pantocrater, or the birth of Charlemagne like a Nativity icon, would you not object to that? When an icon is depicting a deep theological meaning, especially that of God as the Trinity, and you use any old group of three people, you elevate those three people to being symbols of God, which isn’t true for Joseph or Mary.

I do agree, I have much to learn about my faith, but to say that just because I don’t happen to agree with Catholic doctrine as an Orthodox believer is just silly.

No they don't, because the Holy Spirit does not support contradictory interpretations of God's word.
You and I believe. I believe that there is purgatory, you don't. Only one of us is right, we can't both be right. There are 4 billion interpretations, 1 is right. There is 1 truth and the Spirit of truth abides with those who hold that 1 truth, since there can be no 4 billion truths.

I have a MA in English literature. I know that a single piece of text can be used to make countless claims about its meaning. It is utterly ridiculous to approach the Bible like I'm approaching medieval English poem and use the text itself to prove or disprove something. Christ knew that too, that's why He charged the Apostles to preach, He breathed the Holy Ghost on them, not you, and they transferred that authority to preach to their disciples ie priests of the Apostolic Churches. And lo and behold, all Apostolic Churches have 99% the same interpretation of the Bible. What a happy coincidence don't you think?

Also, the Copts, whose Church was founded by st. Mark, have an interesting saying. They say Christ did not write a book, he charged the Apostles to preach ie to transfer faith orally. So if you said to them what you said to me, they'd laugh at you.

Because you provided a definitive statement regarding an issue. You also take it upon yourself to call something a deadly heresy, even though you're just a dude on the internet.
That's false equivalency because I am talking about 2000 years of theology vs. a dude on the internet calling something deadly heresy because angels are in the same picture as the Holy Family. Your claims are simply ridiculous (that angels in the picture with Joseph elevate him to the status of God because Trinity) and the claim about angels is totally incoherent rambling.

I know you don’t think they have the Holy Spirit, I don’t either, just clarifying.

i apologize if I have been presumptuous. i admit, I might have jumped the gun, and I ask for your forgiveness. Pray for me that my pride and feeling of intellectual superiority might not drag me to hell. May at the end of the day God be victor, and every man humbled in his presence.

Yep, not as special as the Logos Himself through which all things were made humbling himself to submit to Joseph as a child would his father though.

There is nothing in scripture to support this idea.
This is an extra-biblical invention to support the latter-days apotheosis of Mary by the Byzantines.

keklet
This whole thread so exposes the Jehovah's witness in some of you. They also believe the Bible is "too sacred" and "too incomprehensible" to be understood by the average mind. They have used that statement to justify twisting the faith into monstrous heresies. Aaaaaand what have you guys done … ?

Y'know, beyond treating parishioners as mushrooms.

Attached: eye-rolling-infinity.png (500x729, 721.24K)

Scripture isn't exhaustive. Remember there's also the oral tradition as well as the written one. Paul taught a lot of things in person by speeches and by mentoring his own disciples (Timothy for one), some of which are recorded in Acts but not all. Jews never considered the OT exhaustive, there was an oral tradition to go with it and that continued on. Protestants are the only group who hold that the Bible is exhaustive and there it contains every single piece of relevant information concerning Christ, which is a rather silly view because even John itself states
So I have no idea why you guys have a fit of autism any time it's suggested that maybe someone who followed Jesus taught people but didn't write his teachings down and those teachings were preserved by an oral tradition, not in writing?

John was justifying why he didn’t write more than he did. He wrote all that was needed.

Also, are you implying that anything Paul said is somehow equal to scripture? There’s a reason not every one of Paul’s letters is preserved as scripture, because they aren’t all scripture.
The first extant epistle (non scriptural) after the Bible is 1 Clement which treats the Phoenix as a real animal. Do you see why tradition can’t be held up as equal to holy scripture? The Bible says that SCRIPTURE the direct product of the Holy Ghost, “oral” TRADITION is not mentioned as a direct product of the Holy Ghost.

OP here again to check on this trainwreck of a thread

Again, Mary being a perpetual Virgin does not go against the Bible, and most Protestants only argue against it to be contrarian.

Read what Jesus’ response to Mary was when she said her and Joseph were worried sick: “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” Jesus respected and obeyed Joseph, sure, but he never once believed him to be his real father. Indeed, seeing as Joseph is never seen again and only Mary and the children of Joseph seem to appear around Jesus, it’s possible Joseph either died before Jesus started his ministry or he simply didn’t believe in Jesus’ claims (admittedly, the first option is probably the most likely and what tradition supports).

Yes. To claim otherwise is to say that someone gifted the Holy Spirit and inspired by it is capable of false teachings. Pauls letters are scripture because they were written by Paul who had apostolic authority. All of Pauls teachings therefore are reliable, whether written or spoken because it was his authority that flowed down to his writings.

It can and was held up as equal by ALL Christians prior to the 15th century. That is when a new innovation occurred whereby some Christians thought they could separate scripture from the sacred tradition that was required to interpret it and resulted in a degenerative form of Christianity that spawns new heresies every single year.

So, there's a such thing as an infallible human being?
And so Clement is right, there is a real bird called a phoenix that dies and is reborn?

Not the person you’re responding to, but it’s not Paul that is infallible, but the Holy Spirit working through him. As for the Phoenix, 1 Clement is not Scripture (which also talks about phoenixes, at least in the KJV) but even if it was, scripture isn’t supposed to be 100% scientifically accurate. It’s job is to teach the Word of God and the history of Salvation, something YEC seem to always miss.

No. There's such a thing as an infallible Holy Spirit which works through human beings though. Do you think Paul was capable of teaching falsehood about Christ? If so then you think it's possible that he taught false doctrine at one of the churches he established?

And so Genesis is right, God created the Earth in literal 7 days 6000 years ago? Clement isn't scripture but if you're willing to admit scripture can be interpreted with a spiritual non-literal meaning then you can do the same with the writings of the Church fathers.

Alright but Im not YEC.

Im aware the Holy Ghost is infallible

Im not YEC, but now you're really saying 1 Clement is like Genesis.

I have no idea why you believe in these human beings that are never wrong. Somehow even though they're sinful men and God is not a respecter of persons, the Holy Ghost ALWAYS works in what they're saying, and therefore the Bible really isn't that special at all.

Yeah?

You're strawmanning me now which is an indication you're discussing this in bad faith. I didn't say 1 Clement was like Genesis, I pointed out that if you're willing to interpret Genesis 1 with spiritual meaning not literal then why not interpret Clement in the same way? The point is your argument about Clement being absurd because he talks about the Phoenix like it's a real animal doesn't hold much weight when scripture itself talks about things we know aren't factually true in the literal sense and you seem to have no problem with those.

Again, strawman. I just told you that Paul is not infallible. The Holy Spirit which compelled him to spread the gospel IS infallible. It was impossible for Paul to teach falsely because he was guided in his teaching by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is special in that it's the most tangible of the deposits of faith that were left to us. It doesn't stand on it's own though, the writings were written with the expectation that the people who had them already knew the basis which provided them with the correct interpretive framework to understand them. In other words the Bible is useless without the tradition to go along with it that informs you off the correct exegetical methodology to use to understand it.

What exactly was it, may I ask, that the Pharisees were doing wrong, all those years ago?

They weren't practicing what they preached. They had a lack of faith that led to them becoming hypocrites, judging others while abusing their positions of authority to earn unwarranted material gains. Not all of the Pharisees were bad, there were ones who actually believed and lived by the faith and eventually followed Jesus, Nicodemus for example.

Gosh, it's almost like I said Joseph was His foster father. Also don't besmirch saints to try to prove your point when you know full well you don't have a case against them.

Dirty prot here, but I think this is simple enough:
Despite actual paternity, Joseph was Jesus' father as much as Mary was his mother. Joseph likely had more influence in the development of the character (not the righteousness or divinity, but human development) of Jesus than anyone else. Jesus is the only Way, but that way could have been elucidated by any number of similar means, it was the character of Jesus' human nature that molded his words to come out as parables to be understood by peasants rather than theological puzzles for the Pharisee (or I guess as both rather than just the latter). Even if you don't think Jesus' brothers came out of Mary, physical father figures are important. I think the prevalence of Mariology puts a damper on that culturally in Catholic/Orthodox denominations (no excuse for the prots, first to admit) but if they weren't, God wouldn't have bothered with Joseph in the first place.

Also
lol

If the Bible isn't meant to be exhaustive, what is the point? If there is 'secret revealed knowledge passed down from long ago' what makes you better than a gnostic? The Bible is Jewish meditation literature at its core, it is meant to be read and reread over a lifetime. Every line is packed with meaning to enable that. Multiple interpretations aren't necessarily wrong because there are many lessons meant to be learned and questions answered through searching. The Bible provides a framework of orthodoxy, within which all answers are held. What is outside that framework is what becomes heresy. It is not just a single static story that needs updates from a counsel. It's the living Word of God, perfect in its intention and delivery.

And also
Literally this. If you have to make up scientific mumbo-jumbo to fit God into your worldview, your god is small. It's fine to believe in expanded creation models, but to treat YEC like idiots for having faith that God means what he literally says, maybe it's time to stop relying so much on your own wisdom.

The point is that it's a very good source since we can get our teachings straight from the pens of the apostles. Christ gave us a Church however, not a book, and it is the Church where the fullness of Christs teachings can be found. The Bible is of course the cornerstone on which all doctrine is built on, but it's not the end all and be all and nobody even claimed that it was until the reformers decided to write some fanfiction

I grew up as an Orthodox in a Catholic country and this whole "Joseph, the father of Jesus", and "Holy Family" thing always bothered me a lot. Orthodox tradition agrees that he was 80 when betrothed to Mary, and died at the age of 110. Furthermore Orthodoxy agrees that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were the children from Joseph's previous marriage, and certainly weren't the children of the Theotokos because she was a perpetual virgin, even Catholicism concurs with this latter part. If according to Catholic modernism Joseph was middle-aged or younger he would've foregone all ability to have a family for some crazy vow of chastity, which would've been very radical but is mentioned NOWHERE in the Bible. Ultimately the young Joseph is only a fantasy reflection of the nonsensical vow of unmarriedness for Catholic priests and their other perversions of homosexuality and pedophilia.

Is that same vow of unmarriedness just as nonsensical for orthodox bishops?

There is literally no implication of this. It's a mother, husband and child pictured together. Just because there's three of them doesnt mean the artist is in anyway trying to imply that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph is the Trinity.

If Catholics actually do believe in this, then can you point to any Catholic that suggests that Joseph is one of the persons of the Trinity

Again, just because you see a connection to something else doesnt mean that connection is really there.

I again must apologize for my behavior in this thread. I see that in my vain attempt to act like some moral and traditionalist busybody, I became a Pharisee, and like a Pharisee I was btfo by truth. Really, after having some time to think about it, having Saint Joseph and The Theotokos together with Christ in an icon is not wrong, just non traditional in the Orthodox Church. While I still object to the icons based on the Hospitality of Abraham (which very rarely use Joseph, Mary, and Christ and one of which I must confess is from the Neocatechumenal Way, which from what I heard is a pseudo-Catholic cult), I See now that ultimately, Saint Joseph was a truly great Saint, an old man who out of his own love for God adopted Mary and Jesus to be his wife and foster child. Yes, he might not have such a large role in traditional Eastern theology (hardly mentioned in the Christmas services), but then again Joachim and Anna are not even mentioned in the Bible, and yet they are mentioned during the dismissal at every Divine Liturgy.

Please forgive me, Saint Joseph, if I have marginalized your role in your Lord and foster son’s life, forgive me Jesus for saying ill about your brother and Guardian, and forgive me brothers and sisters on Zig Forums for being reactionary and “too big for my britches”.

Attached: 407B8C62-AA01-45EB-83BD-13DBDC1ED6B9.jpeg (480x600, 78.15K)

The verses you quote prove nothing

Is this a game of semantics? Of course someone who keeps the commandments of God isn't sinning voluntarily. Those two things cannot go together, by definition. However, everyone still has the free will to choose to sin. The reason I quotes that sentence of yours, is because the way you wrote it ("kept from voluntary sin") makes it sound like she had no say in the matter.

She abstained from sinning. That’s what I meant.

Oooooorrrrrr, more realistically, Joseph was in his mid to late 20s, Mary was probably 15 or 16, and Joseph died young after having a few kids with Mary because literally nothing about the Gospel changes if she did or did not procreate after having Jesus, sex and procreation are acts of worship in themselves within the bounds of marriage. It was the ancient middle east, high mortality rates, not a fun time to be alive and blue collar lol…

God saw it fit to place Joseph with Mary and Jesus in their earthly lives, so what makes you think that you know better?
I'm sorry to point the finger, and I do hope that you are being sincere in this post, but I am finding it particularly pernicious to launch an attack on the holy st Joseph for no good reason…
I find it a commonality Eastern Orthodox often have with sedevacantists - a lack of charity, and an eagerness to attack anything they don't like simply for the reason that they don't like it (with quasi-theological reasoning to follow, as in the example of you above).
You should say a novena to St Joseph. He is a very powerful saint, and he will likely be gracious with you despite your unwarranted aggression…
Maybe he'll even lead you to the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ;^)

I will start including Saint Joseph in my prayer life, and I absolutely agree that many converts to Orthodoxy, when starting out, are almost hyperlegalistic in a sort of ploy to show commitment. Most of them not including me, God willing will eventually tire of Orthodoxy all together, because they will realize that cradle Orthodox are often less committed to the spiritual walk then the Protestants or Catholics the converts often come fromz

I pray everyday that God will give me patience and an understanding heart. How can I show unbelievers Christ when I am attacking fellow believers? May St. Joseph, The Theotokos, and Christ our lord bless us all in the Name of God. Amen.

Attached: 0407D0B4-B68D-4FF6-9757-61C926450550.jpeg (625x773, 128.87K)

Literally no one believed this until monasticism became popular in the church.

Attached: 1538522934350.jpg (200x227, 4.92K)