Protoevangelium of James

Standing Up · #**581** 30th March 2012, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Kepha

First off, he wouldn't mention Clement since He believed in the EV and you continuing to say the opposite will never change that fact.

I'll go through Clement one more time.

Then He only mentioned two other names. Why, because those were obviously the only two Helvidius mentioned. IOW, Jerome was rebutting Helvidus point by point.

This is a perfect example of wishful thinking. The entire reading was ONLY about one thing. Defending the Ever Virgin belief. St. Jerome said NOTHING about those other things under each and every one of His steps while defending a corrupt stance regarding those brothers of Christ. Arianism was never brought up once. Here's what St. Jerome said early to show His true intent of His writings.

I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse [NOTE: Jerome uses the ancient method of counting parts of months as whole months, hence a pregnancy of a little more than nine months is called ten months long; he later, chapter 20, shows that he knows pregnancy normally lasts nine months]. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a virgin after her son was born.

There is NOTHING about Arianism there or even hints it.

Also, lets just accuse St. Jerome of lying because He doesn't produce actual quotes instead of just names. We all could just say "maybe" He did have that info available to him which you'd never do or every post of yours on here would admittedly be in question since they end with absolutes of your line of thinking.

And St. Jerome never thought it important enough to make longer His 'Against Helvidus' teaching and said this. He didn't think it necessary at the time to write volumes on it.

Except that is what those men were known for; they were predecessors of Arianism. As far as I know, none of them wrote anything specifically about EV. They wrote about Jesus being baptized and adopted as Christ at baptism.

So, perhaps Jerome has simply made an associative error. IOW, if one says, Mary had other children, this is not to say she wasn't a virgin when she had Christ Jesus. But that is his arguement. No ever virginity, then you promote anti-Christ (denying Christ came in the flesh, like Arius, like those three predecessors). It's quite effective. Erroneous, but quite effective on the surface.

PS. It's also very ironic because Tertullian, who Jerome dismisses with an ad hominem, had said the exact opposite. To promote EV is to deny the humanity of Christ. No slouch, that Jerome, eh?

Standing Up · #**582** 30th March 2012, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Ortho_Cat

I have a question for those who think that declaring Mary as ever-virgin is tantamount to promoting gnosticism and virgin cults.

Do you also think that because of the fact Paul was unmarried (and also a virgin, I would presume) he is endorsing gnosticism and virgin cults?

Does the fact that he wrote this:

in which he clearly gives preference to chastity over any other lifestyle, mean that he is endorsing gnosticism and virgin cults?

This makes us think about Jesus as well. If we are to follow someone's lifestyle, it would be Jesus. Yet, we know he was unmarried and a virgin. In fact, he said "those who do not follow after me cannot be my disciple." So someone could logically deduce, by some of the opinions expressed regarding Mary's virginity in this thread, that the same conclusions can be drawn from Jesus' and Paul's lifestyle as well.

So then, I think one should be very careful not to stretch this "theory" connecting chastity and gnosticism too far, for obvious reasons, unless they are ready to declare that all of Christianity promotes gnosticism and virgin cults.

And they say we make wild associations. Anyway, the thread's not about EV. It's about the PoJ. Is it gnostic? Does it contradict scripture? Did the church reject it in 500ad? Yes, yes, yes.

Ortho_Cat · #**583** 30th March 2012, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Standing Up

And they say we make wild associations. Anyway, the thread's not about EV. It's about the PoJ. Is it gnostic? Does it contradict scripture? Did the church reject it in 500ad? Yes, yes, yes.

what are the gnostic passages again?>

Standing Up · #**584** 30th March 2012, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tzaousios

The intricacy of the dance of rhetorical association (without saying it outright) of Orthodoxy/Catholicism with the heresy of Gnosticism is breathtaking.

Hmmm, we've all distanced ourselves from that. We all agree Christ was born normally from the virgin. Down the birth canal, the water, the baby, the placenta. Right? Or is the east gate teaching still around?

Ortho_Cat · #**585** 30th March 2012, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Hmmm, we've all distanced ourselves from that. We all agree Christ was born normally from the virgin. Down the birth canal, the water, the baby, the placenta. Right? Or is the east gate teaching still around?

why not a miraculous c-section?

SolomonVII · #**586** 30th March 2012, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ortho_Cat

i will have a gander then

Please do. If you are interested in the subject, I certainly am. What I am not interested in is getting into another snarky exchange that is sure to draw all those who dislike me here out of the woodwork like flies to cow pies.

I should point out though, to qualify and place limits on what I had said previously, that virginity is in itself not gnostic.
And even as there is absolutely no historical basis for believing so, even if Mary decided on a chaste, sexless marriage, this too is not gnostic per se.
Christianity is not Judaism after all, and both Christ and Paul were chaste, with Paul speaking of chasteness as a higher virtue for those who are not interested in sex anyway is a perfectly valid point for Christianity. It is not a common Jewish point of view, but, again , Christianity is not Judaism. It is Scriptural, and demonstrably apostolic.

What I do object to though, on theological grounds, is the common Christian conception that Mary would somehow be holier on account of marital chasteness, and less pure on account of marital sex.
EO and Catholics have maintained a very strong sense of sacraments, which in effect sanctify life in the flesh and in the physical world as being of the Kingdom of God, which is at hand here and now, through the water of baptism, through the oil of sanctification, through the bread and wine, and human touch, and full marital bliss.
I am not critical of the article of faith that holds Mary as virgin. It is not a historical belief, but if that is someone's faith then that is that.
The objection I raise is when people say that Mary is Virgin because sexual relations would make her less than holy. The sacrament of marriage sanctifies our sexual relationships and assures us of the purity of marital bliss. This to me is an anti-sacramental attitude then.
And if not sacramental. then not apostolic Christian. So then, where might have that attitude, prevalent throughout Christian history, come from?
PofJ gives us clues, I think.

Uphill Battle · #**587** 31st March 2012, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by SolomonVII

Please do. If you are interested in the subject, I certainly am. What I am not interested in is getting into another snarky exchange that is sure to draw all those who dislike me here out of the woodwork like flies to cow pies.

I should point out though, to qualify and place limits on what I had said previously, that virginity is in itself not gnostic.
And even as there is absolutely no historical basis for believing so, even if Mary decided on a chaste, sexless marriage, this too is not gnostic per se.
Christianity is not Judaism after all, and both Christ and Paul were chaste, with Paul speaking of chasteness as a higher virtue for those who are not interested in sex anyway is a perfectly valid point for Christianity. It is not a common Jewish point of view, but, again , Christianity is not Judaism. It is Scriptural, and demonstrably apostolic.

What I do object to though, on theological grounds, is the common Christian conception that Mary would somehow be holier on account of marital chasteness, and less pure on account of marital sex.
EO and Catholics have maintained a very strong sense of sacraments, which in effect sanctify life in the flesh and in the physical world as being of the Kingdom of God, which is at hand here and now, through the water of baptism, through the oil of sanctification, through the bread and wine, and human touch, and full marital bliss.
I am not critical of the article of faith that holds Mary as virgin. It is not a historical belief, but if that is someone's faith then that is that.
The objection I raise is when people say that Mary is Virgin because sexual relations would make her less than holy. The sacrament of marriage sanctifies our sexual relationships and assures us of the purity of marital bliss. This to me is an anti-sacramental attitude then.
And if not sacramental. then not apostolic Christian. So then, where might have that attitude, prevalent throughout Christian history, come from?
PofJ gives us clues, I think.

But do you not understand that it isn't the position that Marital sex is defling, but that marital sex is common practice, and thus inconsistent with the uniqueness and holiness of the incarnation?

Catholics don't argue that having sex defiles you. They argue that God had another purpose for Mary, beyond that of ordinary means.

Again, I don't share that belief. But at least you should fire at the right target.

Ortho_Cat · #**588** 31st March 2012, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by SolomonVII

Please do. If you are interested in the subject, I certainly am. What I am not interested in is getting into another snarky exchange that is sure to draw all those who dislike me here out of the woodwork like flies to cow pies.

I should point out though, to qualify and place limits on what I had said previously, that virginity is in itself not gnostic.
And even as there is absolutely no historical basis for believing so, even if Mary decided on a chaste, sexless marriage, this too is not gnostic per se.
Christianity is not Judaism after all, and both Christ and Paul were chaste, with Paul speaking of chasteness as a higher virtue for those who are not interested in sex anyway is a perfectly valid point for Christianity. It is not a common Jewish point of view, but, again , Christianity is not Judaism. It is Scriptural, and demonstrably apostolic.

What I do object to though, on theological grounds, is the common Christian conception that Mary would somehow be holier on account of marital chasteness, and less pure on account of marital sex.
EO and Catholics have maintained a very strong sense of sacraments, which in effect sanctify life in the flesh and in the physical world as being of the Kingdom of God, which is at hand here and now, through the water of baptism, through the oil of sanctification, through the bread and wine, and human touch, and full marital bliss.
I am not critical of the article of faith that holds Mary as virgin. It is not a historical belief, but if that is someone's faith then that is that.
The objection I raise is when people say that Mary is Virgin because sexual relations would make her less than holy. The sacrament of marriage sanctifies our sexual relationships and assures us of the purity of marital bliss. This to me is an anti-sacramental attitude then.
And if not sacramental. then not apostolic Christian. So then, where might have that attitude, prevalent throughout Christian history, come from?
PofJ gives us clues, I think.

It's not a historical belief that Mary was ever-virgin? And your belief regarding Mary as having children is the historical belief? How do you come to this conclusion, given that your view was in the extreme minority of early church Christians?

We are saying what we believe, and this is the tradition that has been handed down to us, and it makes good sense to us why she would remain a virgin after such a miraculous occurence. We didn't simply "make up" the teaching of her ever-virginity to make Mary into something she's not or to use it to form the basis of a virgin cult or gnostic sect. It is our understanding, from scripture and tradition, that this is in fact what happened.

Mary being ever-virgin does not somehow give a blanket approval for every Christian to strive to be a life-long virgin. Nor does it mean that Christian's who marry and have sex are "bad". This is what we believe to be the path that God chose for her, and the one she submitted to (not unlike John the Baptist, or Paul, or the other disciples, or Jesus). Many people here are assuming that we beleive her ever-virginity must has some sort of wide-spread implication for Christians as a whole, and that we are to follow her example of virginity and form virgin cults. This is simply not the case. We nor anyone else would be any less likely to form virgin cults based on the example of Jesus or Paul.

SolomonVII · #**589** 31st March 2012, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ortho_Cat

It's not a historical belief that Mary was ever-virgin? A

Listen carefully now
It has been historically believed that Mary was ever-virgin, but such a belief is based in no known Scripture, and no confirmed apostolic teaching.

And your belief regarding Mary as having children is the historical belief?

Again listen carefully.
Did I say that?
I did not.
The earliest documented recording of the belief that brothers of Scripture were not brothers of the flesh comes from the PofJ, which is a false writing.
The literal meaning of the word adelphos, "of the womb" is of course brothers in the flesh. While Standing Up makes the stronger statement that brothers in the flesh is scriptural, my main contention on these threads is that if I err, I err on the side of taking the Bible at its word. The literal sense of the word is much more consistent with the related OT prophecy, and with the context of the NT texts.
In the absence of clear apostolic teaching, I believe this is more justified.
That is, it is more justified in the ABSENCE of any historical documentation linking a different understanding back to the Apostles.

Your church teaches differently, in the absence of clear apostolic teaching.
That is your faith. That is faith according to obedience to EO teaching. It is not faith according to Scriptural or apostolic teaching however, for the only documentation that even tangentially supports this claim as being apostolic is PoJ, and James did not leave us this testimony. As far as Scripture goes, the text makes not clear reference to either cousin or stepbrother, and the usual assumption in the absence of other scriptural qualifiers, would be that brothers of the womb actually means brothers of the womb.

It is not a difficult point to understand, but few have grasped this so far.

But if I am wrong, clear the air, and show us the apostolic teaching of this. Show us the Scripture-the Scripture that MUST mean something other than brothers of the same womb!
Nobody, so far, has given this kind of evidence; OrthodoxyUSA in fact quoted Basil that much of this kind of evidence remains unproclaimed by EO on purpose, and it is only evangelization that is not hidden.

How do you come to this conclusion, given that your view was in the extreme minority of early church Christians?

You are making the same leap as others have.
I only say that stepbrothers (or cousins) is not from Scripture or known Apostolic teaching. It is the story that EO shares with PofJ.
I do not even say that James is the source, although that is the more reasonable conclusion to come to, given the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

As far as minority or majority, faith is not a democracy.

We are saying what we believe, and this is the tradition that has been handed down to us, and it makes good sense to us why she would remain a virgin after such a miraculous occurrence.

It has been handed down to you by tradition yes.
There is no evidence to say that it has been handed down to you through apostolic tradition or on the evidence of Scripture.
Where does the evidence come from then?
It is a valid question.

We didn't simply "make up" the teaching of her ever-virginity to make Mary into something she's not or to use it to form the basis of a virgin cult or gnostic sect. It is our understanding, from scripture and tradition, that this is in fact what happened.

Maybe it was made up. Maybe it wasn't. I have no idea. The evidence for such a claim remains hidden to me and probably to everybody else.
The thing is, you don't know either. Old Joseph/ stepbrothers is unsubantiated by anything resembling scriptural or apostolic evidence.

Mary being ever-virgin does not somehow give a blanket approval for every Christian to strive to be a life-long virgin. Nor does it mean that Christian's who marry and have sex are "bad".

Okay. Then it is your contention that it would have been perfectly legitimate, and would not be a problem or compromised the purity of Mary, if she had behaved like a typical married woman with her husband Joseph?
I recall some kind of objection on your behalf that had something to do with Joseph doing his business there after the Holy event.

Are you retracting your former contention then, the same contention that SU has pointed out to you was the argument of Jerome and others?

Uphill Battle · #**590** 31st March 2012, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by SolomonVII

Listen carefully now
It has been historically believed that Mary was ever-virgin, but such a belief is based in no known Scripture, and no confirmed apostolic teaching.

Again listen carefully.
Did I say that?
I did not.
The earliest documented recording of the belief that brothers of Scripture were not brothers of the flesh comes from the PofJ, which is a false writing.
The literal meaning of the word adelphos, "of the womb" is of course brothers in the flesh. While Standing Up makes the stronger statement that brothers in the flesh is scriptural, my main contention on these threads is that if I err, I err on the side of taking the Bible at its word. The literal sense of the word is much more consistent with the related OT prophecy, and with the context of the NT texts.
In the absence of clear apostolic teaching, I believe this is more justified.
That is, it is more justified in the ABSENCE of any historical documentation linking a different understanding back to the Apostles.

Your church teaches differently, in the absence of clear apostolic teaching.
That is your faith. That is faith according to obedience to EO teaching. It is not faith according to Scriptural or apostolic teaching however, for the only documentation that even tangentially supports this claim as being apostolic is PoJ, and James did not leave us this testimony. As far as Scripture goes, the text makes not clear reference to either cousin or stepbrother, and the usual assumption in the absence of other scriptural qualifiers, would be that brothers of the womb actually means brothers of the womb.

It is not a difficult point to understand, but few have grasped this so far.

But if I am wrong, clear the air, and show us the apostolic teaching of this. Show us the Scripture.
Nobody, so far, has given this kind of evidence; OrthodoxyUSA in fact quoted Basil that much of this kind of evidence remains unproclaimed by EO, and it is evangelization that is not hidden.

You are making the same leap as others have.
I only say that stepbrothers (or cousins) is not from Scripture or known Apostolic teaching. It is the story that EO shares with PofJ.
I do not even say that James is the source, although that is the more reasonable conclusion to come to, given the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

It has been handed down to you by tradition yes.
There is no evidence to say that it has been handed down to you through apostolic tradition or on the evidence of Scripture.
Where does the evidence come from then?
It is a valid question.

Maybe it was made up. Maybe it wasn't.
The thing is, you don't know either. Old Joseph/ stepbrothers is unsubantiated by anything resembling scriptural or apostolic evidence.

Okay. Then it is your contention that it would have been perfectly legitimate, and would not be a problem or compromised the purity of Mary, if she had behaved like a typical married woman with her husband Joseph?
I recall some kind of objection on your behalf that had something to do with Joseph doing his business after the Holy event.

Are you retracting your former contention then, the same contention that SU has pointed out to you was the argument of Jerome and others?

Are you continuing to feign ignorance of Holy Tradition?