HISTORICAL-COURSE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

[Maria]

I do not support Kerykos's schism or ecclesiology, but he does have a college degree in theology and does have some correct opinions. It is totally acceptable to have the bath, since thousands of traditional icons have it. A bath was not necessary for Christ, but it was customary for all babies of the time and therefore is represented in traditional icons of His Nativity. Lets follow tradition

The problem with the bath is that it teaches an untruth that the Christ Child was born in a natural way when Christ was born in a supernatural way in that before, during, and after the birth, the Christ Child did not open his mother's womb (cervix). It is taught that the Virgin Mary did not have a menstrual period before or after the birth of Christ. Hence, the ever-Virgin Mary was never unclean, and retained her purity and virginity. When it came time for her to produce her first egg, it was immediately fertilized by the action of the Holy Spirit at the Holy Incarnation. This is why it is taught that the Ever Virgin Mary gave birth at the young age of 13 or 14.

Even today, babies are bathed to wash off the maternal blood during vaginal childbirth and the amniotic fluid with its impurities. In addition, babies are naturally born with a protective waxy layer which is washed off by the midwife or nurse.

[jdigrande]

The Council of Blachernae (1285) is not on this timeline.

[jdigrande]

St. Joseph went to search for midwives and was not present when the Theotokos gave birth. Only the Theotokos witnessed the birth.

Perhaps after the midwives got there they prepared the bath but it was not used. Or perhaps later on Our Lord was given a bath like he would take a bath throughout his life. It was cold and winter in a cave. At some point he would have had a bath as a baby.

On many of these ikons the midwives are depicted in a separate part of the cave. I have been there. There are many small caves surrounding the cave where Our Lord was born. St. Joseph is also depicted in a separate cave

At any rate many of these ikons are very ancient and thus are not heretical. At no point in the last 1500 years has a synod condemned them until 1992 or am I mistaken in that? There are thousands of these original ikons.

[d9popov]

The fact that Christ submitted to John's baptism of repentance does not "teach" the false notion that Christ "needed" the baptism or "needed" repentance. He submitted even though it was NOT needed. Similarly, the traditional icons with the bath do not "teach" the false notion that Christ "needed" a bath. Christ did not need a bath, but tradition says one was prepared for him. Christ did not need baptism, but Scripture teaches that He was baptized. The traditional icons are perfectly Orthodox (they are TRADITIONAL, after all). They do not teach or imply a heresy. They do not teach a non sequitur. The traditional icons do not deserve to be denigrated, accused, or banned. We can paint new icons exactly as the old, traditional icons have always been painted.

[someguy]

Anyone know if the page 1 diagram has a more up to date version elsewhere?