Midwife: Remained a Virgin

[Standing Up]

I'm confused by something, perhaps someone here can clear up for me. The PoJ is an apocryphal work ( Gospel of James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) right? So why would we use it for the description of Jesus birth? If its erroneous or fictitious, can we trust any part of it, especially considering its the only place the supernatural birth is mentioned, yet the bible says nothing about it? I would think such an obvious miracle would be presented in at least one of the gospel testimonies, especially Luke considering he was such a fastidious historian...

Origen tells us the reason they use it. It is to honor Mary. The idea that sex or flesh is bad is very ancient. Head knowledge or self-denial is good. So goes the thinking. Origen took the thinking to its logical ending slice.

The virgin Mary conceived and bore (brought forth) a Son. Given that 1 John says by water and blood, thus proving God-with-us or Christ came in the flesh, then we know the scriptural/apostolic teaching. This instruction is contrary to the PoJ version of no afterbirth, continuous ever-virgin.

 

[narnia59]

Origen tells us the reason they use it. It is to honor Mary. The idea that sex or flesh is bad is very ancient. Head knowledge or self-denial is good. So goes the thinking. Origen took the thinking to its logical ending slice.

The virgin Mary conceived and bore (brought forth) a Son. Given that 1 John says by water and blood, thus proving God-with-us or Christ came in the flesh, then we know the scriptural/apostolic teaching. This instruction is contrary to the PoJ version of no afterbirth, continuous ever-virgin.

I can't find any commentary around that equates 1 John's statement that Christ came "by water and blood" to refer to his birth. General concensus is it's referring to the manifestation of Jesus at his baptism (water) and his dying on the cross (blood).

This from the People's New Testament Commentary and seems to be the most dominant view:

The water and the blood refer primarily to the baptism that revealed him at the beginning of his earthly ministry and the blood which he shed at its close.

This from Barnes which gives many options for what this could mean, but explicitly eliminates your interpretation:

This does not mean that when he came into the world he was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is, that the water and the blood were clearly manifest during his appearing on earth, or that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his character and work.

1 John 5:6 Bible Commentary

You can read through them all if you like; I just went through the commentaries I own as well. They all flatly disagree with what you're trying to make that verse mean.

 

[Standing Up]

I can't find any commentary around that equates 1 John's statement that Christ came "by water and blood" to refer to his birth. General concensus is it's referring to the manifestation of Jesus at his baptism (water) and his dying on the cross (blood).

This from the People's New Testament Commentary and seems to be the most dominant view:

The water and the blood refer primarily to the baptism that revealed him at the beginning of his earthly ministry and the blood which he shed at its close.

This from Barnes which gives many options for what this could mean, but explicitly eliminates your interpretation:

This does not mean that when he came into the world he was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is, that the water and the blood were clearly manifest during his appearing on earth, or that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his character and work.

1 John 5:6 Bible Commentary

You can read through them all if you like; I just went through the commentaries I own as well. They all flatly disagree with what you're trying to make that verse mean.

You quoted the idea.

"This does not mean that when he came into the world he was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is, that the water and the blood were clearly manifest during his appearing on earth, or that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his character and work. An ambassador might be said to come with credentials; a warrior might be said to come with the spoils of victory; a prince might be said to "come" with the insignia of royalty; a prophet comes with signs and wonders; and the Lord Jesus might also be said to have come with power to raise the dead, and to heal disease, and to cast out devils; but John here fixes the attention on a fact so impressive and remarkable in his view as to be worthy of special remark, that he "came" by water and blood."

Since Barnes is denying it, it's obviously a belief by some.

Read the credentials about an ambassador, a prince, a prophet. Now apply the same idea to God-with-us; the credentials are His normal birth, came by water and blood.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Same word. Came in the flesh (by water and blood).

Barnes, I guess, gets this (come in the flesh), not sure why he can't get the other.

" That is, this doctrine is essential to the Christian system; and he who does not hold it cannot be regarded either as a Christian, or recognised as a Christian teacher. If he was not a man, then ... A mere show, an appearance assumed, a vision, could not make atonement for sin;"

See? Came by water and blood is the opposite of the "appearance assumed, a vision".

So, yeah, water and blood and cord and afterbirth are all part and parcel of the reality of God-with-us. To deny it, is to deny the "Christian system".

 

[narnia59]

You quoted the idea.

"This does not mean that when he came into the world he was accompanied in some way by water and blood; but the idea is, that the water and the blood were clearly manifest during his appearing on earth, or that they were remarkable testimonials in some way to his character and work. An ambassador might be said to come with credentials; a warrior might be said to come with the spoils of victory; a prince might be said to "come" with the insignia of royalty; a prophet comes with signs and wonders; and the Lord Jesus might also be said to have come with power to raise the dead, and to heal disease, and to cast out devils; but John here fixes the attention on a fact so impressive and remarkable in his view as to be worthy of special remark, that he "came" by water and blood."

Since Barnes is denying it, it's obviously a belief by some.

There isn't any pie-in-the-sky idea that's not a belief by some.

Barnes understands that taken at face value with no appropriate Biblical hermeneutics applied one could assume this is speaking of the birth of Christ and takes pains for the reader to not fall into that trap.

Read the credentials about an ambassador, a prince, a prophet. Now apply the same idea to God-with-us; the credentials are His normal birth, came by water and blood.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Same word. Came in the flesh (by water and blood).

Barnes, I guess, gets this (come in the flesh), not sure why he can't get the other.

" That is, this doctrine is essential to the Christian system; and he who does not hold it cannot be regarded either as a Christian, or recognised as a Christian teacher. If he was not a man, then ... A mere show, an appearance assumed, a vision, could not make atonement for sin;"

See? Came by water and blood is the opposite of the "appearance assumed, a vision".

So, yeah, water and blood and cord and afterbirth are all part and parcel of the reality of God-with-us. To deny it, is to deny the "Christian system".

So again, I can't find any Christian Bible commentary that agrees with you that verse is speaking about the birth of Christ so your application of it has a value of about zero to the topic.

 

[Standing Up]

There isn't any pie-in-the-sky idea that's not a belief by some.

Barnes understands that taken at face value with no appropriate Biblical hermeneutics applied one could assume this is speaking of the birth of Christ and takes pains for the reader to not fall into that trap.




So again, I can't find any Christian Bible commentary that agrees with you that verse is speaking about the birth of Christ so your application of it has a value of about zero to the topic.

Most people today believe the notion of Marian ever-virgin. Not so the apostles.

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Barnes (since you brought him up): The thing denied [in the verse] does not appear to have been that Jesus was the Messiah, for their pretending to be Christian teachers at all implied that they admitted this; but that the Son of God was "really a man," or that he actually assumed human nature in permanent union with the divine. The point of the remark made by the apostle is, that the acknowledgment was to be that Christ assumed human nature; that he was really a man as he appeared to be: or that there was a real incarnation, in opposition to the opinion that he came in appearance only, or that he merely seemed to be a man, and to suffer and die.

As a thoughtful Christian, Barnes knows the idea. Christ came in the flesh. How?

The apostle John answers by using the same word erchomai to describe this "came" in the flesh in 4:2, as he does at 5:6, Christ came by water and blood. Same idea. Born of flesh. Born of water and blood.

Again, that was the understanding some 2000 years ago. The two verses hook together (came-erchomai in the flesh, came-erchomai by water and blood) to define the same thing (God-with-us). Since that time, the ever-virgin myth developed such that for some 1500 years, believers are taught Christ came in the flesh, somehow, without water and blood. So, while Barnes and you and I agree with John that Christ came in the flesh, I'm the only one of us three who agrees with John that Christ came by water and blood.

 

[narnia59]

Most people today believe the notion of Marian ever-virgin. Not so the apostles.

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Barnes (since you brought him up): The thing denied [in the verse] does not appear to have been that Jesus was the Messiah, for their pretending to be Christian teachers at all implied that they admitted this; but that the Son of God was "really a man," or that he actually assumed human nature in permanent union with the divine. The point of the remark made by the apostle is, that the acknowledgment was to be that Christ assumed human nature; that he was really a man as he appeared to be: or that there was a real incarnation, in opposition to the opinion that he came in appearance only, or that he merely seemed to be a man, and to suffer and die.

As a thoughtful Christian, Barnes knows the idea. Christ came in the flesh. How?

The apostle John answers by using the same word erchomai to describe this "came" in the flesh in 4:2, as he does at 5:6, Christ came by water and blood. Same idea. Born of flesh. Born of water and blood.

Again, that was the understanding some 2000 years ago. The two verses hook together (came-erchomai in the flesh, came-erchomai by water and blood) to define the same thing (God-with-us). Since that time, the ever-virgin myth developed such that for some 1500 years, believers are taught Christ came in the flesh, somehow, without water and blood. So, while Barnes and you and I agree with John that Christ came in the flesh, I'm the only one of us three who agrees with John that Christ came by water and blood.

When there's only one, there's no "agreement". Again, I've looked through probably a dozen commentaries -- not one agrees with your usage of that verse in relationship to Christ's birth.

Believers are taught that Christ came in the flesh, somehow, with neither a human father nor a natural conception. Many in our day consider that idea to be far-fetched and mythology. Yet you don't seem to have a problem with that notion.

Yet you posit that it's somehow impossible that Christ came in the flesh without a natural birth.

So how is it possible that Christ can still 'come in the flesh' with a supernatural conception but impossible that Christ can 'come in the flesh' with a supernatural birth????? That makes it clear you must believe that Christ was not really 'in the flesh' between the time of his conception and his birth, and only became 'in the flesh' by his birth.

So, do you really think Christ was not 'in the flesh' prior to his birth and somehow his birth is what makes him 'in the flesh'? Strange notion indeed, but the logical conclusion of your line of thought that a natural birth is required in order to make him 'in the flesh'. What was he during all that time in the womb if he wasn't already in the flesh?

 

[Standing Up]

When there's only one, there's no "agreement". Again, I've looked through probably a dozen commentaries -- not one agrees with your usage of that verse in relationship to Christ's birth.

Believers are taught that Christ came in the flesh, somehow, with neither a human father nor a natural conception. Many in our day consider that idea to be far-fetched and mythology. Yet you don't seem to have a problem with that notion.

Yet you posit that it's somehow impossible that Christ came in the flesh without a natural birth.

So how is it possible that Christ can still 'come in the flesh' with a supernatural conception but impossible that Christ can 'come in the flesh' with a supernatural birth????? That makes it clear you must believe that Christ was not really 'in the flesh' between the time of his conception and his birth, and only became 'in the flesh' by his birth.

So, do you really think Christ was not 'in the flesh' prior to his birth and somehow his birth is what makes him 'in the flesh'? Strange notion indeed, but the logical conclusion of your line of thought that a natural birth is required in order to make him 'in the flesh'. What was he during all that time in the womb if he wasn't already in the flesh?

Weird conflation you've made. To think He was not born with water and blood IS to think He was not of the flesh, not of Mary, in the womb.

OR, we can agree with the apostle John (and the others). Being supernaturally conceived, being in the flesh, He was in the womb, complete with cord and blood and water. Then He was born normally, complete with cord and blood and water.

 

[narnia59]

Weird conflation you've made. To think He was not born with water and blood IS to think He was not of the flesh, not of Mary, in the womb.

OR, we can agree with the apostle John (and the others). Being supernaturally conceived, being in the flesh, He was in the womb, complete with cord and blood and water. Then He was born normally, complete with cord and blood and water.

The apostle John is not referring to his birth in the quote you cite. I'm sure you'll keep using it though.

You are quite clear in your belief that in order to be 'of the flesh', Christ had to have a natural birth.

So since a) he had a supernatural conception (not of the flesh) and b) his being 'of the flesh' is somehow dependent upon a natural birth in your way of thinking:

Just exactly what was he in Mary's womb, according to you? Because based upon your logic he couldn't have been of the flesh at that time -- his conception wasn't of the flesh and he hadn't yet been born, and you assert if he hasn't had a natural birth, he can't be of the flesh.

If, however he was already of the flesh in Mary's womb (despite his supernatural, not of the flesh conception), then how he is born can have no bearing on that fact.

 

[Standing Up]

The apostle John is not referring to his birth in the quote you cite. I'm sure you'll keep using it though.

You are quite clear in your belief that in order to be 'of the flesh', Christ had to have a natural birth.

So since a) he had a supernatural conception (not of the flesh) and b) his being 'of the flesh' is somehow dependent upon a natural birth in your way of thinking:

Just exactly what was he in Mary's womb, according to you? Because based upon your logic he couldn't have been of the flesh at that time -- his conception wasn't of the flesh and he hadn't yet been born, and you assert if he hasn't had a natural birth, he can't be of the flesh.

If, however he was already of the flesh in Mary's womb (despite his supernatural, not of the flesh conception), then how he is born can have no bearing on that fact.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'll take a shot. IOW, I've said my piece, you don't understand it, but you're going to say your piece. No problem.

Of the flesh means of Mary's womb. I have no idea about how God did it. Don't care. But seed of the woman (Genesis), which is normally of the man, provided the conception. The virgin conceived. John of Damascus says by hearing. Okay. Works as well as anything I suppose.

The fetus grew in her womb. He was of the flesh. Attached by an umbilical cord. In the ambiotic fluid (as we call it today). Then birth. Then the baby is born. Out He comes along with all the normal birth things (cord, placenta, afterbirth, water, blood). (we're much more sophisticated than John the apostle).

So, now, your point is He wasn't in the womb? Wasn't of Mary? Somehow rather, passed through Mary? Such that no placenta, afterbirth, water and blood were present at His birth. A miraculous conception means a miraculous birth. Right?

 

[narnia59]

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'll take a shot. IOW, I've said my piece, you don't understand it, but you're going to say your piece. No problem.

Of the flesh means of Mary's womb. I have no idea about how God did it. Don't care. But seed of the woman (Genesis), which is normally of the man, provided the conception. The virgin conceived. John of Damascus says by hearing. Okay. Works as well as anything I suppose.

The fetus grew in her womb. He was of the flesh. Attached by an umbilical cord. In the ambiotic fluid (as we call it today). Then birth. Then the baby is born. Out He comes along with all the normal birth things (cord, placenta, afterbirth, water, blood). (we're much more sophisticated than John the apostle).

So, now, your point is He wasn't in the womb? Wasn't of Mary? Somehow rather, passed through Mary? Such that no placenta, afterbirth, water and blood were present at His birth. A miraculous conception means a miraculous birth. Right?

My points are:

a) You can claim your own view for John the apostle all you want, but you're taking that verse out of context and as attested to by every legitimate scholar I can find, that verse has nothing to do with the birth of Christ.

and

b) Given that we agree that Jesus was already 'of the flesh' in Mary's womb despite his supernatural conception, it is immaterial as to what type of birth he had in relation to his being 'of the flesh'. No matter how much you try to make it a sticking point for those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

and

c) you're contradicting yourself by claiming that Christ was 'of the flesh' while in the womb of Mary, because according to you he can only be 'of the flesh' if he is the product of a natural birth, and he hasn't even been born yet.

 

[SolomonVII]

The Catholic formula for in the flesh, as far as I know, is from conception to its natural end.
The Incarnation of Jesus means Jesus in the flesh, from conception until it was finished on the cross.

People who denied the flesh of Christ historically also denied the natural birth of Christ. No blood, no water, Mary left in the state in which the afterbirth had not passed through her virginal body. This is the kind of thing that the PoJ gives credence to.

It doesn't fit in well with orthodox Christian theology of a very physical birth of Christ, whose flesh was the same as our own, whose life paralleled our own in every way. Early Christians therefore were correct to leave such fictions out of their canons.
Unfortunately, long after the book has been rejected, its ideas linger on and on and on.

 

[Standing Up]

My points are:

a) You can claim your own view for John the apostle all you want, but you're taking that verse out of context and as attested to by every legitimate scholar I can find, that verse has nothing to do with the birth of Christ.

Already addressed. The PoJ view (old Joseph, young ever-virgin) came to dominate Christian belief until Jerome and (ever-virgin Joseph and Mary) such that, even though John uses the same terminology to connect "came in the flesh" and "came of water and blood" the association was lost.

The water (baptism) and blood (death) redefinition imply a separation of Christ and Jesus btw.

and

b) Given that we agree that Jesus was already 'of the flesh' in Mary's womb despite his supernatural conception, it is immaterial as to what type of birth he had in relation to his being 'of the flesh'. No matter how much you try to make it a sticking point for those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Trullo council and before that Clement of Alexandria speak to the same issue of "in the womb" and birth as being the same process, the same idea. God with us in the flesh.

and

c) you're contradicting yourself by claiming that Christ was 'of the flesh' while in the womb of Mary, because according to you he can only be 'of the flesh' if he is the product of a natural birth, and he hasn't even been born yet.

Not just me sister. The apostles taught the same. The tradition is then found through Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem.

But again, today, you're right. Today people have a hot (in the womb) and cold (born unnaturally---no water/blood) view. I prefer the whole hot water bath (in the womb and born normally) to the lukewarm.

 

[Standing Up]

The Catholic formula for in the flesh, as far as I know, is from conception to its natural end.
The Incarnation of Jesus means Jesus in the flesh, from conception until it was finished on the cross.

People who denied the flesh of Christ historically also denied the natural birth of Christ. No blood, no water, Mary left in the state in which the afterbirth had not passed through her virginal body. This is the kind of thing that the PoJ gives credence to.

It doesn't fit in well with orthodox Christian theology of a very physical birth of Christ, whose flesh was the same as our own, whose life paralleled our own in every way. Early Christians therefore were correct to leave such fictions out of their canons.
Unfortunately, long after the book has been rejected, its ideas linger on and on and on.

Yes and that'd be their ever-virgin definition, before, during, and after.

And you're spot on re the afterbirth. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Trullo council speak to that very point. The only way to maintain the myth of ever-virgin is to deny the water and blood at birth (and really conception/carrying in the womb as well), which contradicts scripture/apostlic teaching.

 

[SolomonVII]

Yes and that'd be their ever-virgin definition, before, during, and after.

And you're spot on re the afterbirth. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Trullo council speak to that very point. The only way to maintain the myth of ever-virgin is to deny the water and blood at birth (and really conception/carrying in the womb as well), which contradicts scripture/apostlic teaching.

Catholics often bring up the continuity of the church as an unbroken succession of bishops. This is one of the proofs that Irenaeus uses to show the continuity of the message received from Peter and Paul, and then by name to the bishop of his day. More than a list of popes, what Irenaeus is really doing is establishing a continuous historic record of the teaching.

This is what is lacking in EV. What you have is the fictional account falsely attributed to James.
And then you have a succession of people rejecting those claims. There simply is no historic succession to this teaching.
It contradicts scripture, apostolic teaching, and it contradicts the theology of the incarnation as well. The incarnation of Jesus in the flesh was real in every way, and at now time was his presence ephemeral to the human condition. He ate like us, he drank like us, he wept with us, and he suffered just the same as any of us. He loved, he touched, he went into violent rages, he bled and he died, in every way, just like us, just like everybody else.
That is the theology of the incarnation.
But then, the church began teaching that he was not born, just like us. Hi birth process was ephemeral, all mist and light like an angel, with nothing testifying to a normal birth, but in fact, everything testifying to just the opposite.

We know what purpose this kind of birth served for the Marcionites and those who deny the flesh of God.
But what purpose does it serve in the theology of the incarnation, to show that Jesus was not like us after all because of such an ephemeral birth?

 

[Thekla]

The question does occur: were Adam and Eve human ?

 

[SolomonVII]

The question does occur: were Adam and Eve human ?

Yes.

It is also generally agreed that the story of Adam and Eve is not historic in any modern sense of the word. The exact nature of Genesis is for the reader to decide, but there are many even Catholic and Orthodox believers who are willing to regard the story of Adam and Eve as less than a literal account.

I don't really need to hear your account of whether the world is 5000 years old now, or billions, but for the most part people are not getting excommunicated for not taking Adam and Eve literally.

For Christians, even the most liberal interpreters, Jesus most certainly was a man with a history, and a biography. A real history, full contact and interpersonal relationships with flesh and blood people, real life and death, just like all of us.
And a real birth too, I submit, just like everybody else.

 

[Standing Up]

Catholics often bring up the continuity of the church as an unbroken succession of bishops. This is one of the proofs that Irenaeus uses to show the continuity of the message received from Peter and Paul, and then by name to the bishop of his day. More than a list of popes, what Irenaeus is really doing is establishing a continuous historic record of the teaching.

This is what is lacking in EV. What you have is the fictional account falsely attributed to James.
And then you have a succession of people rejecting those claims. There simply is no historic succession to this teaching.
It contradicts scripture, apostolic teaching, and it contradicts the theology of the incarnation as well. The incarnation of Jesus in the flesh was real in every way, and at now time was his presence ephemeral to the human condition. He ate like us, he drank like us, he wept with us, and he suffered just the same as any of us. He loved, he touched, he went into violent rages, he bled and he died, in every way, just like us, just like everybody else.
That is the theology of the incarnation.
But then, the church began teaching that he was not born, just like us. Hi birth process was ephemeral, all mist and light like an angel, with nothing testifying to a normal birth, but in fact, everything testifying to just the opposite.

We know what purpose this kind of birth served for the Marcionites and those who deny the flesh of God.
But what purpose does it serve in the theology of the incarnation, to show that Jesus was not like us after all because of such an ephemeral birth?

As you point out, the original idea of 'unbroken succession' was to inform/prove the Pauline "teach the same". Irenaeus knew full well, however, that Rome failed at such. But Irenaeus, perhaps not trusting enough in God to do as He said, would nonetheless try to help God by asserting it anyway. His redemption is in his mentioning Polycarp and Ephesis (sic) in the same breath.

And I suppose, we might thank him anyway and praise God for the Lord's clear teaching on the issue to set up the lines, long blurred over the centuries, but drawn clearly now. To what purpose? God-with-us.

 

[rakovsky]

Origen traced the belief that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph/previous wife to the PoJ and gospel of Peter. Both present docetic beliefs.

Docetism:
Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his physical body was a phantasm. The word docetai (illusionists) referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197-203),[5] who discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter, during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in Rhosus, and later condemned it as a forgery
-wiki-

Standing up:
Let me raise a few issues with what you said about the Gospel of Peter:
1. Origen said that he found a certain idea in either the Protoevangelion of James or in the Gospel of Peter, not in both.
2. There are different translations whether Bp. Serapion wrote that the thoughts in the text included Docetism or if the notions of the group who wrote it included Docetism.
3. It isn't clear whether the text itself is actually Docetic. The part that came down to us about the Passion and the Resurrection is not necessarily Docetic in its ideas. I made a thread about this and welcome your feedback:
THE GOSPEL OF PETER (70-160). Question: Is it Docetic?