Protoevangelium of James

[SolomonVII]

This of course assumes that:
1. all facts/ideas are documented
2. all facts/ideas originate in their documentation
3. all documentation is extant

These three assumptions which underly the position presented by yourself are demonstrably false.


The claimed "agreement" among "many ECFs" uses dubious standards for some claimed advocates of the OP's position.

For example, though the term "adelphos" requires further descriptive to narrow from among the definitions (both in Scripture and secular works), authors have been cited using the term but not the 'narrowing' gloss as supposed "support" for the OPs claim. This is invalid.

Doesn't assume nothing.
Also does not value primitivism where faith is based on nothing except " because I say so".

But you already understand all this.

 

[Thekla]

Doesn't assume nothing.
Also does not value primitivism where faith is based on nothing except " because I say so".

But you already understand all this.

The claim, as made by the OP and others in this thread, relies on several axiomatic assumptions (which I have listed). Without these, there is no argument/claim. Even the understanding "primitivism" relies on a set of standards which may not be shared by others - a set of standards which also may not have considered other things of value that do exist within the system (in this case primitivism). Our culture, which relies heavily on literacy and rationalism, is just one of many cultures, and does not exclusively contain "all values".

 

[SolomonVII]

The claim, as made by the OP and others in this thread, relies on several axiomatic assumptions (which I have listed). Without these, there is no argument/claim. Even the understanding "primitivism" relies on a set of standards which may not be shared by others - a set of standards which also may not have considered other things of value that do exist within the system (in this case primitivism). Our culture, which relies heavily on literacy and rationalism, is just one of many cultures, and does not exclusively contain "all values".

We are all products of our culture. If you are willing to suspend the rules of evidence and suspend all disbelief, then, if you can, all the best.

If you want something bad enough though, how do you know where the faith ends and the self-deception begins?

It is my experience in internet religious forums that when we starting lying to ourselves about what we want to believe, but know in our heart of hearts that we really don't, it becomes a habitual way of dealing with others too.

That insight really changed my perspective of my own faith group on these internet forums actually. "Why is it so each for them to believe lies about me ?" is easier to answer once you understand that their faith is demanding that they submit to things that they cannot in good conscience believe about what their own church teaches. And of course I am not outside of that process either. What can I truly believe, and upon which foundation of truth would be sufficient for a real faith to become possible?

These are not questions I can take lightly. Spiritual truth is always experienced subjectively. There are rules of evidence by which we know that 2+2=4 infallibly even, but spiritual truth requires belief based on faith alone.

None of us really choose our cultures, we are born into them, and they in turn are born into us. We are not gods looking down upon ourselves objectively, but we live our cultures, and they live through us. Culture and the individual define each other.

And belief, in our culture especially requires an evidential foundation for most of us anyway. Primitivism more familiar to a pre-literate mindset is not a part of our cultural experience any longer.

Why believe in Christ, but not in Krishna for example, now in a culture exposes us to both? How-as Christians- can we explain that not so much to others, but to ourselves first and foremost, so that our faith becomes a real one, not for them, but for ourselves?

Christianity makes historic truth claims, like no other religion does. Certainly there is a Sacred History that goes beyond the limits of empirical inquiry and historic analysis in the modern sense, and many events in both the New and the Old Testament are much more concerned to being true to the theological points that they are making rather than to an adherence to the history itself.

That is fair enough. Whether Judas hung himself, for example, or spilled his entrails on the rocks, or both, points to a theological explanation that supercedes the historic. The question then becomes not whether it is good history, but whether it is good theology. We at least know that this has passed the test of being included in Scripture.

It is important though, for me at least, to expect that some evidence be put forth for any dogmatic claims made by a Christian church, lest the whole enterprise be spun into yet another Krishna myth. For many Christians here actually, this is true. There is no going back home to a simpler, more primitive age of belief. We can only more forward from where we are.

Above all though, I suppose we must remain true to our beliefs, what the Spirit actually has convicted us of. In most cases for people of our culture, empirical and historic method have become crucial for determining what could not possibly be true. More than that, judgement and discernment come into play and anything that falls too far out of the bell curve of what we can statistically expect to be true, where belief itself becomes difficult, a disrespect for the spirit of truth, if not truth himself. God just did not disrespect the reasonable dobut of Thomas.

White crows are possible. The sound of hoof-beats on the Oklahoma plain could possibly be zebras, or maybe even signal the approach of a rhinoceros herd.

With the P of J as the only real evidence for old Joseph and sexless Mary, few outside of the EO, who are required to believe such as a matter of faith, have a basis for such a belief in the first place. It does not fall to the same level of improbability of a white crow, or even of zebras galloping across the grasslands of the American West, but it does rise to the level of disbelief that the Koranic stories on Mary preceded from the lips of Gabriel, and were not a rehash of another older pseudoepigraphical tale.

For those of us not compelled by our church or our mullahs to believe in such things, the modern rules of evidence kick in, and we simply— don't.

If not for a faith in an infallible Church compelling us to believe, why would anybody?

 

[Incariol]

It's evident from the reality that while many in the EOC and RCC reference the rejected book, none quote from it (I think they are all aware that it doesn't teach what they do - ergo, the unwillingness to quote the false book). If you are willing, just quote the part that says Mary Had No Sex Ever and Jesus Had No Siblings Ever. Or if you have some other false, non-authoritative book that has some substantiation for these views, feel free to quote them.

.

Sure. I always liked Against Helvidius by St. Jerome 1,629 years ago.

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary

 

[Standing Up]

Sure. I always liked Against Helvidius by St. Jerome 1,629 years ago.

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary

c400. Long before that was Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Hegesippius, and Cyril of Jerusalem. They spoke against the spurious, contradictory PoJ. They spoke to the brothers (same mother, different father) of Jesus. Long before Jerome and Helvidius.

 

[Standing Up]

It has not been demonstrated that the Protevangelion is the only source.

As mentioned, there's also Pseudo-Matthew written c600 that revived the banned PoJ viewpoint over the cousin theory of Jerome.

 

[Incariol]

c400. Long before that was Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Hegesippius, and Cyril of Jerusalem. They spoke against the spurious, contradictory PoJ. They spoke to the brothers (same mother, different father) of Jesus. Long before Jerome and Helvidius.

If you aren't going to show enough class to bother skimming what I post before automatically posting a completely random response, I won't bother responding to it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As mentioned, there's also Pseudo-Matthew written c600 that revived the banned PoJ viewpoint over the cousin theory of Jerome.

Which, even if true, has nothing to do with the reason these two denominations keep claiming this rejected book is authoritative - their dogma that Mary Had No Sex Ever and Jesus Had No Siblings At All. The rejected book teaches neither of those things - which I sadly suspect is why the rejected book isn't quoted, just referenced (without a notation that the very same denominations reject the book they are referencing as authoritative).





.

 

[SolomonVII]

I think it is fair to say that when it comes to the teaching of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which traditional churches hold to be an infallible teaching (in one form or another of the word infallible), pseudoepigraphia are as close as we are going to get as to documentation supporting this kind of dogma/teaching.
And of course, these pseudoepigraphia teach nothing of the sort either. They are at best damage control against the scripturally based idea that Mary had other children with Joseph.

I tend to think that the belief in the perpetual Virginity has been borrowed from other non-scriptural and non-apostolic sources, that it developed out of the praxis of virginity of the early church, and that the Virgin birth of Jesus of Scripture was used as a springboard to the ever-virginity of Mary doctrine, which in turn justified the pre-existing virgin lifestyle of many religious women in the early church.

As for virginity as a religious practice, that pre-existed the Gospel and Jesus. St Paul, and his understanding that he was living in the end times where a next generation would not really need to be procreated, advocated the virgin lifestyle too, as a higher form of spirituality.
But of course the writing of a probably bald, crippled man who didn't have time or interest in sex is nowhere near as endearing a figure to mimic in virginal practice than the pristine, feminine beauty, and immaculate icon of Mary, Queen of Heaven. Mary as Virginal Icon also would have been more natural to the pre-existing cult of virginity that the early church came into contact with in their evangelizing efforts.

It was a more natural fit then. It is definitely not a scriptural teaching though, nor a teaching of the pseudoepigraphia, nor in any way demonstrably a teaching of the authentic apostles.
What is demonstrable is that a cult of virginity permeated the early church, pre-existed the church in fact. In terms of known sources, this indeed would have been an unwritten tradition that would naturally seek out justification through the doctrine of the Ever-Virgin Mary. Virgin birth becomes Ever-Virgin, in accordance with the pre-existing lifestyle.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think it is fair to say that when it comes to the teaching of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which traditional churches hold to be an infallible teaching (in one form or another of the word infallible),

It's DOGMA in the RCC...

And of course, these pseudoepigraphia teach nothing of the sort either.

EXACTLY.


Which could be that in this entire thread, not a single member of the EOC or RCC has quoted even one word from this rejected book. Over and over and over, we are told that this book is the proof - and yet....

What is demonstrable is that a cult of virginity permeated the early church, pre-existed the church in fact. In terms of known sources, this indeed would have been an unwritten tradition that would naturally seek out justification through the Virgin Mary. Virgin birth becomes Ever-Virgin, in accordance with the pre-existing lifestyle.

Some years ago, I TRIED to research the origins of this (very odd) teaching. Yes, there were pagan (non-Christian and non-Jewish) ideas about sex and virginity that were omnipresent in the world in which early Christianity grew up and developed. HOW (or even why) that got embraced and incorporated, I don't know and couldn't discover - but yes, it's entirely absent in Scripture or the earliest OOC, EOC and/or RCC "fathers." But yes - my research gives a lot of validity to what you posted as the real reason for this; not Scripture, not any rejected early book, not any early Christian, and certainly not Mary (the only one who would know and be able to reveal this supremely private, personal tidbit of information)



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[SolomonVII]

If you aren't going to show enough class to bother skimming what I post before automatically posting a completely random response, I won't bother responding to it.

I think that Standing Up always shows class.

 

[Standing Up]

If you aren't going to show enough class to bother skimming what I post before automatically posting a completely random response, I won't bother responding to it.

Against Helvidius by Jerome is about 200 years after the rejected PoJ. It also introduces a new explanation, the brothers weren't brothers (same mother, different father), they weren't sons of Joseph by a different wife, but the brothers were really cousins.

But I'll start a new thread on the cousin theory that Jerome came up with.

 

[Thekla]

We are all products of our culture. If you are willing to suspend the rules of evidence and suspend all disbelief, then, if you can, all the best.

If you want something bad enough though, how do you know where the faith ends and the self-deception begins?

It is my experience in internet religious forums that when we starting lying to ourselves about what we want to believe, but know in our heart of hearts that we really don't, it becomes a habitual way of dealing with others too.

That insight really changed my perspective of my own faith group on these internet forums actually. "Why is it so each for them to believe lies about me ?" is easier to answer once you understand that their faith is demanding that they submit to things that they cannot in good conscience believe about what their own church teaches. And of course I am not outside of that process either. What can I truly believe, and upon which foundation of truth would be sufficient for a real faith to become possible?

These are not questions I can take lightly. Spiritual truth is always experienced subjectively. There are rules of evidence by which we know that 2+2=4 infallibly even, but spiritual truth requires belief based on faith alone.

None of us really choose our cultures, we are born into them, and they in turn are born into us. We are not gods looking down upon ourselves objectively, but we live our cultures, and they live through us. Culture and the individual define each other.

And belief, in our culture especially requires an evidential foundation for most of us anyway. Primitivism more familiar to a pre-literate mindset is not a part of our cultural experience any longer.

Why believe in Christ, but not in Krishna for example, now in a culture exposes us to both? How-as Christians- can we explain that not so much to others, but to ourselves first and foremost, so that our faith becomes a real one, not for them, but for ourselves?

Christianity makes historic truth claims, like no other religion does. Certainly there is a Sacred History that goes beyond the limits of empirical inquiry and historic analysis in the modern sense, and many events in both the New and the Old Testament are much more concerned to being true to the theological points that they are making rather than to an adherence to the history itself.

That is fair enough. Whether Judas hung himself, for example, or spilled his entrails on the rocks, or both, points to a theological explanation that supercedes the historic. The question then becomes not whether it is good history, but whether it is good theology. We at least know that this has passed the test of being included in Scripture.

It is important though, for me at least, to expect that some evidence be put forth for any dogmatic claims made by a Christian church, lest the whole enterprise be spun into yet another Krishna myth. For many Christians here actually, this is true. There is no going back home to a simpler, more primitive age of belief. We can only more forward from where we are.

Above all though, I suppose we must remain true to our beliefs, what the Spirit actually has convicted us of. In most cases for people of our culture, empirical and historic method have become crucial for determining what could not possibly be true. More than that, judgement and discernment come into play and anything that falls too far out of the bell curve of what we can statistically expect to be true, where belief itself becomes difficult, a disrespect for the spirit of truth, if not truth himself. God just did not disrespect the reasonable dobut of Thomas.

White crows are possible. The sound of hoof-beats on the Oklahoma plain could possibly be zebras, or maybe even signal the approach of a rhinoceros herd.

With the P of J as the only real evidence for old Joseph and sexless Mary, few outside of the EO, who are required to believe such as a matter of faith, have a basis for such a belief in the first place. It does not fall to the same level of improbability of a white crow, or even of zebras galloping across the grasslands of the American West, but it does rise to the level of disbelief that the Koranic stories on Mary preceded from the lips of Gabriel, and were not a rehash of another older pseudoepigraphical tale.

For those of us not compelled by our church or our mullahs to believe in such things, the modern rules of evidence kick in, and we simply— don't.

If not for a faith in an infallible Church compelling us to believe, why would anybody?

Nah, we don't have "Mullahs"

Primitivism is a broad term, and as we haven't defined it, I can really only respond in a general way.

From a Christian perspective, primitivism is grounded in the "natural" (and fallen nature at that), and tends to spiritualize it. This arises from man's createdness, which includes his sense of the "supranatural", the existence of God. This misallocation of the sense of the spiritual to the created is something Paul discusses in Romans.

The practice of placing memorials at sites where there has been an interaction with God might, in secular terms, fall under "primitivism"; yet, it was the practice of Abraham and others.

Rationalism might forget in this instance that Abraham falls under the rubric of oral tradition and primitivism; it was Moses, who lived long after Abraham, to whom the Pentateuch is attributed.

No cultural view can be said to hold all value, and as you noted, we all are raised in and imbued in a set of acculturated values. This is how we learn and interact - and this is often invisible to ourselves.

Christianity, however falls under neither primitivism or rationalism. It can be said to have elements of both; after all, we accept the Scripture as true despite a paucity of scientific or outside historical confirmation. Christianity, as you interestingly observed, seems to be the only religion which must fully deal with the interaction of the spiritual and the historic or physical. We alone have a God who became fully man yet remained fully God. In my understanding, this is "incarnational"; this is core characteristic (incarnational) of Christianity. Not just in Christ, but in every aspect of physical, human, and historic life; the filling and restoring in the headship of the Savior. The restoration that all creation groans in anticipation of ...

When dealing with the rational vantage of our culture, there should be (imo) some self awareness, some analysis. In this discussion the claims made thus far have rested on irrational axioms - which I have listed. If the claim is to be made for a standard, the standard should apply to the mechanism of discovery as well. In this thread, it hasn't. Instead, the very assumptions on which the claim is based are fanciful, and not demonstrated in rigorous academic nor rational consideration. It seems parallel to the belief that the base ten number system is the reason that we have five digits on each hand.

 

[Thekla]

Both Christ and Paul teach on living the equivalent of the chaste life (for example: Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, Christ ...)

Thus continuing in virginity is something demonstrated in Christianity from early on, and in Judaism.

That there were said to be virgins in paganism, and also 'virgin births', does not mean this is the origin of Christ's celibacy nor virgin birth.

Correlation is not causation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Both Christ and Paul teach on living the equivalent of the chaste life (for example: Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, Christ ...)

Perhaps you are of the opinion that a sexless life is better.... okay. Be sexless. But I don't agree that your opinion is documentation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary Had No Sex Ever and that such is taught in the rejected book of the so-called "Protoevangelium of James."


It IS possible ("ALL things are possible....") that whoever this author was of this false, rejected book shared the idea that sex makes a woman (but not a man) bad, defiled, impure - even if she is married. Could be. And maybe his esteem for Mary caused him to think, "how could Mary be such an ugly, bad person to have had sex!" Maybe. But even IF such was the case (and it wouldn't shock me), that still does not reveal that this false, rejected book states that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Fact and Truth, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary Had No Sex Ever and/or Jesus Had No Siblings At All. In fact, it just seems to ME, if this book said anything of the sort (WRONGLY motivated or otherwise), someone would have quoted something from it. No one has. The reason, IMO, is simple and obvious: even this false, rejected book says nothing of the sort. Rightly or wrongly, correctly motivated or wrongly motivated. Some members of two denomination keep saying it does, but they don't quote it because it doesn't. That's how it looks to me....





.

 

[Standing Up]

Perhaps you are of the opinion that a sexless life is better.... okay. Be sexless. But I don't agree that your opinion is documentation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary Had No Sex Ever and that such is taught in the rejected book of the so-called "Protoevangelium of James."


It IS possible ("ALL things are possible....") that whoever this author was of this false, rejected book shared the idea that sex makes a woman (but not a man) bad, defiled, impure - even if she is married. Could be. And maybe his esteem for Mary caused him to think, "how could Mary be such an ugly, bad person to have had sex!" Maybe. But even IF such was the case (and it wouldn't shock me), that still does not reveal that this false, rejected book states that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Fact and Truth, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary Had No Sex Ever and/or Jesus Had No Siblings At All. In fact, it just seems to ME, if this book said anything of the sort (WRONGLY motivated or otherwise), someone would have quoted something from it. No one has. The reason, IMO, is simple and obvious: even this false, rejected book says nothing of the sort. Rightly or wrongly, correctly motivated or wrongly motivated. Some members of two denomination keep saying it does, but they don't quote it because it doesn't. That's how it looks to me....





.

Jerome and the church of his time (included what came to be RC/EO/P) was evidently appalled with the PoJ version of the brothers of Jesus. It contradicted scripture, but more than that they were aghast with the tradition that the husband of Mary had not only been married before, but had children to boot. Scandal. Shame. Sins upon sin. His solution was to invent the cousin theory.

The whole tradition of EV is simply the misplaced gnostic idea that flesh is bad. Tertullian battled that by saying Mary had more children. The virgin gave birth to Christ. Then she had more children whose flesh is all the same as ours.

The monastic "virginal" life somehow makes you more pure before God, as if Christ couldn't.

 

[Thekla]

Perhaps you are of the opinion that a sexless life is better.... okay. Be sexless. But I don't agree that your opinion is documentation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary Had No Sex Ever and that such is taught in the rejected book of the so-called "Protoevangelium of James."

Your observation re: virginity in Christianity and correlation to the belief in the ever-virginity of Mary and paganism missed other examples in Christianity.

Ie, if the reason for teachings on virginity have their origin in paganism, so can all. (After all, the early detractors of Christianity have made precisely this argument in reference to the virgin birth of Christ.)

It IS possible ("ALL things are possible....") that whoever this author was of this false, rejected book shared the idea that sex makes a woman (but not a man) bad, defiled, impure - even if she is married. Could be. And maybe his esteem for Mary caused him to think, "how could Mary be such an ugly, bad person to have had sex!" Maybe. But even IF such was the case (and it wouldn't shock me), that still does not reveal that this false, rejected book states that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of Earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Fact and Truth, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary Had No Sex Ever and/or Jesus Had No Siblings At All. In fact, it just seems to ME, if this book said anything of the sort (WRONGLY motivated or otherwise), someone would have quoted something from it. No one has. The reason, IMO, is simple and obvious: even this false, rejected book says nothing of the sort. Rightly or wrongly, correctly motivated or wrongly motivated. Some members of two denomination keep saying it does, but they don't quote it because it doesn't. That's how it looks to me....

It was my impression that the discussion in this thread was on the Protoevangelion, not the ever-virginity per se.

 

[SolomonVII]

Nah, we don't have "Mullahs"

I know we don't.
The post quoted would be a very difficult read.
I think if you really want to understand it, you will be able.

Primitivism is a broad term, and as we haven't defined it, I can really only respond in a general way.

I already defined what I mean by it:

Primitivism where faith is based on nothing except " because I say so".

It is all about the nature of evidence, in the narrow confines of this particular discussion.
We moderns have been introduced to new methods of discovering the truth that early pre-modern people did not have at their disposal.
As much as we might like to sometimes, we just cannot go back to a time when truth is based on trust in an authority. We cannot go back to a geocentric universe, or a world where the skies are supported by pillars at the four corners of the disk of the earth either. For most of us that would be pretending to say this is the way that things really are, because holy men have said so.
The nature of evidence has changed since the time of Christ, really changed because of Christ, according to Rene Girard. The inability to distinguish the innocence of Jesus from the guilt of Barabbas, the divinity of the Son of Man from the treachery of the son of god, introduces doubt into the world, and a desire for more reliable tests of reality.

We have new methods of reality testing now. There is no authentic way (for me at least) to go back to a time where we did not.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

if the reason for teachings on virginity have their origin in paganism, so can all. (After all, the early detractors of Christianity have made precisely this argument in reference to the virgin birth of Christ.)

... I never remotely indicated that it was. Only that that seems to be a POSSIBILITY.

What DOES seem evident TO ME is that it doesn't have it's origin in Scripture, in Mary or Joseph or Jesus or any Apostle, and not in this rejected so-called "Protoevangelium of James" (as evidence in part by the reality that none supporting the dogma ever quote from it, just reference it).

As you WELL know, I don't regard the dogma of 2 denominations that Mary Had No Sex Ever to be true OR false - I simply don't know to the level of calling it DOGMA or HERESY. I only feel that respect for Mary, for women, for marriage and for truth suggests that when we SHOUT something SO intensely personal (and irrelevant) about a wife - it seems better to have some evidence that it's true. I know we've been over this and you very passionately disagree with me on this (we may need to eventually agree to respectfully disagree on this issue of respect), but you know my heart and my position on that. I hold Mary in GREAT esteem, which is WHY I care about what is shouted about Her and whether it is true (and necessary). You are not Catholic, but we Catholics were taught that before something is said, ESPECIALLY something dogmatically and personally, ask "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" And that repeating something unsubstantiated as true is both gossip and sin. I don't know how your denomination teaches on this, but you know my view. If I could care less about Our Lady, I MIGHT not care what is said about Her - but actually, I would. I was taught to care about women, to respect women. Part of my DNA... Forgive me.

It was my impression that the discussion in this thread was on the Protoevangelion, not the ever-virginity per se.

EXACTLY.....

A point I too have been TRYING to make.






.

 

[Thekla]

I know we don't.
The post quoted would be a very difficult read.
I think if you really want to understand it, you will be able.



I already defined what I mean by it:

It is all about the nature of evidence, in the narrow confines of this particular discussion.
We moderns have been introduced to new methods of discovering the truth that early pre-modern people did not have at their disposal.
As much as we might like to sometimes, we just cannot go back to a time when truth is based on trust in an authority. We cannot go back to a geocentric universe, or a world where the skies are supported by pillars at the four corners of the disk of the earth either. For most of us that would be pretending to say this is the way that things really are, because holy men have said so.
The nature of evidence has changed since the time of Christ, really changed because of Christ, according to Rene Girard. The inability to distinguish the innocence of Jesus from the guilt of Barabbas, the divinity of the Son of Man from the treachery of the son of god, introduces doubt into the world, and a desire for more reliable tests of reality.

We have new methods of reality testing now. There is no authentic way (for me at least) to go back to a time where we did not.

Then the claims in this thread, as much as they are derived from this new sensibility, should also rely on the same standard of viability as the standard they apply to others.

And that is what is lacking. As before, the axiomatic assumptions upon which the argument to support the claim are made are flawed; they do not adhere to any rigorous standard and are not only unreliable, they are demonstrably false.

If one is to have a standard, one should also adhere to the standard, no ?
If not the standard, especially when the claim is for the standard of factual reliability, if not met in the mechanism of investigation, is not even a standard but opportunism.