In the Protoevangelium of James (PoJ) thread, it was shown to be gnostic and docetic (Christ only appeared to have flesh, wasn't really born normally) and contradictory to scripture.
Docetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As the conversation unfolded about His birth (off topic to the PoJ), I opened a new thread on the Birth of Christ to explore the nature of His birth further. Some thought He was born normally; others thought it more unnaturally. Sure enough, someone mentioned the east gate was closed to support the unnatural birth. In turn someone said that doesn't make sense, it'd be the south gate where normal birth occurs.
The light bulb went off and I said the east gate was referring to the old belief Christ was born out from Mary's side. Not sure anyone agreed with the lightbulb .
Lo and behold, I stumbled upon this from John of Damascus c700ad.
The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing, but the birth through the usual path by which children come, although some tell tales of His birth through the side of [Mary] the Mother of God.
NPNF2-09. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Although I don't have any further connections backwards from John yet, the birth through the side of Mary idea traces back to the gnostic PoJ.
So, Jesus born normally (the usual path of water, baby, placenta) OR Jesus born from Mary's side.
Which do you agree with?
Docetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As the conversation unfolded about His birth (off topic to the PoJ), I opened a new thread on the Birth of Christ to explore the nature of His birth further. Some thought He was born normally; others thought it more unnaturally. Sure enough, someone mentioned the east gate was closed to support the unnatural birth. In turn someone said that doesn't make sense, it'd be the south gate where normal birth occurs.
The light bulb went off and I said the east gate was referring to the old belief Christ was born out from Mary's side. Not sure anyone agreed with the lightbulb .
Lo and behold, I stumbled upon this from John of Damascus c700ad.
The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing, but the birth through the usual path by which children come, although some tell tales of His birth through the side of [Mary] the Mother of God.
NPNF2-09. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Although I don't have any further connections backwards from John yet, the birth through the side of Mary idea traces back to the gnostic PoJ.
So, Jesus born normally (the usual path of water, baby, placenta) OR Jesus born from Mary's side.
Which do you agree with?