Protoevangelium of James

[Montalban]

Using "Virgin" as an appellation, when it postdates her sojourn on earth, is a statement of ever-viriginity. (Else, it would be for example, Mary then a virgin, Mary while she was yet virgin, etc.)

Exactly. It doesn't say "The Once Virgin Mary"

 

[Kepha]

Virgin Birth, yes

False unsubstantiated Dogma outside of all Scripture and apostolic tradition.

Once you start meeting the same criteria for your faith that you expect of mine we can talk.
So as I asked you in the other thread, would love to see you use Scripture and sub-Apostolic writings (those which you want from us) to prove they agreed with your 66 Book Canon idea. After all, your entire faith is built on that yes? So the importance of this is crucial.

It is a work of fiction, contradicts Scripture, and contradicts the human nature of Jesus.

The Ever Virgin Mary contradicts the human nature of Jesus?

False unsubstantiated Dogma outside of all Scripture and apostolic tradition. The only documented support comes indirectly from PofJ and similar pseudoepigraphic writings.

Mm-hmm. I've said that a few times already somewhere on here.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Exactly. It doesn't say "The Once Virgin Mary"

I don't know about that.

Using an appelation doesn't mean it's a constant state. It typically points to, and identifies the pinnacle, or attribute for which the individual is famous... as in this case, the virgin birth of Christ.

 

[Kristos]

I don't know about that.

Using an appelation doesn't mean it's a constant state. It typically points to, and identifies the pinnacle, or attribute for which the individual is famous... as in this case, the virgin birth of Christ.

Yeah, I kind of agree. I don't think this is a very strong argument on it's own, but when taken along with other traditions it does seem to testify to the mind of the writer in that she was seen as "the Virgin" as a defining attribute of her entire life, not just a brief period before the birth of Jesus. At some point "Ever" was added in many hymns (Justinian's hymn for example) to make the point more clear, and no one complained because it described better what they already believed.

 

[Thekla]

I can't find any mention of Mary being "in pain" in the text; what is said is that Joseph thinks she is - ie the mention of what Joseph surmises locates his point of view somewhat in the typical expectation of childbirth. It is Joseph also who seeks a midwife, according to the text. Nor does the text give any description of the birth itself; the "light" per the description seems so strong as to conceal the events of the birth. As the light recedes, the child becomes visible. Ie the description does not indicate the child somehow is mystically manifested, but that the presence of the light obscures any view of the actual birth. As the presence of an intense light is mentioned numerous times in the Scriptures (here as a 'cloud', so it seems an overshadowing of sorts), this detail does not seem inconsistent with other accounts of the presence of God.

There is no description of the child's initial dressing - the swaddling by Mary is described at a later point in the text, at the time of the slaughter of the innocents.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, here are the passages from the Protoevangelion of James, describing the events before, during, and after the birth:

1 Now there went out a decree from Augustus the king that all that were in Bethlehem of Judaea should be recorded. And Joseph said: I will record my sons: but this child, what shall I do with her? how shall I record her? as my wife? nay, I am ashamed. Or as my daughter? but all the children of Israel know that she is not my daughter. This day of the Lord shall do as the Lord willeth.

2 And he saddled the she-ass, and set her upon it, and his son led it and Joseph followed after. And they drew near (unto Bethlehem) within three miles: and Joseph turned himself about and saw her of a sad countenance and said within himself: Peradventure that which is within her paineth her. And again Joseph turned himself about and saw her laughing, and said unto her: Mary, what aileth thee that I see thy face at one time laughing and at another time sad? And Mary said unto Joseph: It is because I behold two peoples with mine eyes, the one weeping and lamenting and the other rejoicing and exulting.

3 And they came to the midst of the way, and Mary said unto him: Take me down from the ass, for that which is within me presseth me, to come forth. And he took her down from the ass and said unto her: Whither shall I take thee to hide thy shame? for the place is desert.

XVIII

I And he found a cave there and brought her into it, and set his sons by her: and he went forth and sought for a midwife of the Hebrews in the country of Bethlehem.

2 Now I Joseph was walking, and I walked not. And I looked up to the air and saw the air in amazement. And I looked up unto the pole of the heaven and saw it standing still, and the fowls of the heaven without motion. And I looked upon the earth and saw a dish set, and workmen lying by it, and their hands were in the dish: and they that were chewing chewed not, and they that were lifting the food lifted it not, and they that put it to their mouth put it not thereto, but the faces of all of them were looking upward. And behold there were sheep being driven, and they went not forward but stood still; and the shepherd lifted his hand to smite them with his staff, and his hand remained up. And I looked upon the stream of the river and saw the mouths of the kids upon the water and they drank not. And of a sudden all things moved onward in their course.

XIX

I And behold a woman coming down from the hillcountry, and she said to me: Man, whither goest thou? And I said: I seek a midwife of the Hebrews. And she answered and said unto me: Art thou of Israel? And I said unto her: Yea. And she said: And who is she that bringeth forth in the cave? And I said: She that is betrothed unto me. And she said to me: Is she not thy wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was nurtured up in the temple of the Lord: and I received her to wife by lot: and she is not my wife, but she hath conception by the Holy Ghost. And the midwife said unto him: Is this the truth? And Joseph said unto her: Come hither and see. And the midwife went with him.

2 And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary. And the midwife cried aloud and said: Great unto me to-day is this day, in that I have seen this new sight.

3 And the midwife went forth of the cave and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not. And Salome said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I make not trial and prove her nature I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth.

XX

1 And the midwife went in and said unto Mary: Order thyself, for there is no small contention arisen concerning thee. Arid Salome made trial and cried out and said: Woe unto mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God, and lo, my hand falleth away from me in fire. And she bowed her knees unto the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob: make me not a public example unto the children of Israel, but restore me unto the poor, for thou knowest, Lord, that in thy name did I perform my cures, and did receive my hire of thee.

3 And lo, an angel of the Lord appeared, saying unto her: Salome, Salome, the Lord hath hearkened to thee: bring thine hand near unto the young child and take him up, and there shall be unto thee salvation and joy.

4 And Salome came near and took him up, saying: I will do him worship, for a great king is born unto Israel. And behold immediately Salome was healed: and she went forth of the cave justified. And Io, a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell none of the marvels which thou hast seen, until the child enter into Jerusalem.

Protoevangelium of St. James

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Using an appelation doesn't mean it's a constant state. It typically points to, and identifies the pinnacle, or attribute for which the individual is famous... as in this case, the virgin birth of Christ.

Exactly....

Mitt Romney is consistently referred to as "GOVERNOR Romney." That title does not mean that he is the PERPETUAL governor of Mass. Obama is called "PRESIDENT Obama" it does not prove that he is the PERPETUAL president of the USA.


All this, however, seems irrelevant to THIS discussion since this FALSE book doesn't say that Mary had no sex ever or Jesus had no siblings at all.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Using "Virgin" as an appellation, when it postdates her sojourn on earth, is a statement of ever-viriginity. (Else, it would be for example, Mary then a virgin, Mary while she was yet virgin, etc.)

I'm a virgin. Does that prove that I'm a PERPETUAL virgin, that at the second of my death (or undeath), I WILL be a virgin? While 100% of human beings are a virgin at some point, the percentage of PERPETUAL virgins is considerably smaller, it is a situation that typically changes.





.

 

[Thekla]

Exactly....

Mitt Romney is consistently referred to as "GOVERNOR Romney." That title does not mean that he is the PERPETUAL governor of Mass. Obama is called "PRESIDENT Obama" it does not prove that he is the PERPETUAL president of the USA.

All this, however, seems irrelevant to THIS discussion since this FALSE book doesn't say that Mary had no sex ever or Jesus had no siblings at all.

Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah

Actually every "former" president is still a president, just not an acting president.

Should Mary have been e-v, though options for the biological identity of the adelphos would narrow, lending some credibility to such accounts which suggest a biological identity of the adelphos which preclude a direct genetic link to Mary. Ie, though not central, the discussion of the e-v is still pertinent.

 

[Thekla]

I'm a virgin. Does that prove that I'm a PERPETUAL virgin, that at the second of my death (or undeath), I WILL be a virgin? While 100% of human beings are a virgin at some point, the percentage of PERPETUAL virgins is considerably smaller, it is a situation that typically changes.

I'm not sure how this might be relevant ...

 

[SolomonVII]

Once you start meeting the same criteria for your faith that you expect of mine we can talk.

I do set that criteria for myself.
It is only the dark filter that you view me with that makes it appear that I don't.
Uncharitable to the core that you make this about me, instead of the ideas we are disagreeing with.

So as I asked you in the other thread, would love to see you use Scripture and sub-Apostolic writings (those which you want from us) to prove they agreed with your 66 Book Canon idea. After all, your entire faith is built on that yes? So the importance of this is crucial.

I read and respect the Deuterocanons, even though they were disputed, even by Jerome.
Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.
Maybe it yet another example of that dark lens in action.

The Ever Virgin Mary contradicts the human nature of Jesus?

I was trying to stay on topic. I wasn't talking about the Ever-Virgin myth, but the related PofJ, which is fairly Gnostic in its description of a birth of the divine spark.
The Divine nature of Christ overwhelms any idea that this is an actual human birth, which would defeat the whole purpose of the Incarnation, which stresses fully human fully equally with fully divine.
Son of Man.

Mm-hmm. I've said that a few times already somewhere on here.

PofJ has always been considered false and contradictory to Scripture by the catholic church or apostolic orthodoxy. In usual parlance, rejecting a book means rejecting the ideas within, and not so much the papyrus or sheep skin that it was written on.

There were a vast array of heterodox responses that arose out of the Resurrection, that rocked the world at that time. Everybody interpreted it according to their understanding of the world, and few were in the position of the twelve where they actually had intimate knowledge of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension.
False teaching abounded, and many teaching that were not apostolic had to be rejected. That was why deciding which books were a part of Scripture, and which were not, was so crucial.
Confirmed apostolic teaching alone were fit for Scripture. Unfortunately, so called Sacred Tradition circumvents the process, by making the assumption that some among us have a special knowledge and a special relationship with God where they can understand things that lie beyond Scripture and the confirmed apostolic teaching.

The ideas of rejected works and ahistoric theories thereby corrupt the process with a myriad of non-apostolic works that derive from non-apostolic traditions.

PofJ is the case in point. The ideas are non-apostolic, and cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise, except by a blind faith in the special charism of people with special knowledge who have infallibly decided that they know better.

Show me different.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually every "former" president is still a president, just not an acting president.

News to me....


I'm a virgin. Does that prove that I'm a PERPETUAL virgin, that at the second of my death (or undeath), I WILL be a virgin? While 100% of human beings are a virgin at some point, the percentage of PERPETUAL virgins is considerably smaller, it is a situation that typically. Is a former virgin still a virgin in your opinion - just not an active one? Are ALL people perpetual virgins since all are at least former ones?





.

 

[Kepha]

I'm a virgin. Does that prove that I'm a PERPETUAL virgin, that at the second of my death (or undeath), I WILL be a virgin? While 100% of human beings are a virgin at some point, the percentage of PERPETUAL virgins is considerably smaller, it is a situation that typically changes.

However if you lost your virginity and after your death, I continued to salute you in the present tense as Josh the virgin, it would be quite misleading don't you think?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Wow, I can still be a virgin, this is great news

Kidding wit cha's

 

[Thekla]

News to me....


I'm a virgin. Does that prove that I'm a PERPETUAL virgin, that at the second of my death (or undeath), I WILL be a virgin? While 100% of human beings are a virgin at some point, the percentage of PERPETUAL virgins is considerably smaller, it is a situation that typically. Is a former virgin still a virgin in your opinion - just not an active one? Are ALL people perpetual virgins since all are at least former ones?

Where there is a change in status, an appellation indicating a former condition would be inaccurate. For example, I am not known as "the Infant Thekla", as I am now 50 years old. Infancy is a stage of physical development, a "temporary" condition if you will. Child is another matter - one is always the child of someone - in that sense it can, I suppose, be used as an appellation, but not in the sense of a physical condition of being a child (unless one has died in childhood).

I'm not certain how your specific comments relate to the discussion; virginity may or may not be a permanent condition.

 

[Thekla]

However if you lost your virginity and after your death, I continued to salute you in the present tense as Josh the virgin, it would be quite misleading don't you think?

That would be a shame, as there is no marriage in heaven. (In Matthew 22, when Christ states this, he uses the specific term for marriage, gamew", which sort of indicates "exchanging gametes".)

 

[Thekla]

Perhaps the passage in the Protoevangelion which is supposed to indicate the "birth of the divine spark" could be quoted; I don't find it in the text I read (linked in a previous post).

 

[Uphill Battle]

Where there is a change in status, an appellation indicating a former condition would be inaccurate. For example, I am not known as "the Infant Thekla", as I am now 50 years old. Infancy is a stage of physical development, a "temporary" condition if you will. Child is another matter - one is always the child of someone - in that sense it can, I suppose, be used as an appellation, but not in the sense of a physical condition of being a child (unless one has died in childhood).

I'm not certain how your specific comments relate to the discussion; virginity may or may not be a permanent condition.

there is a major distinction though. When addressing the issue of Mary, it is always in relation to her giving birth to the Christ child.

to call her "Mary the Virgin" in regards to that, would be accurate, even 40 years later, and after a possible birth of many other children, because it is in relation to what she was for the incarnation, that is being addressed.

the rest, is mundane and unnoteworthy, by comparison.

 

[Standing Up]

Why are you so concerned about another tradition?

Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you out. There's only 2 traditions I know of in the first 200 years. One is totally debunked. That leaves the other.

PoJ---totally debunked that brothers were from Joseph/previous marriage.

Scripture/tradition---brothers were sons of Joseph/Mary.

So, unless you can come up with something like Jerome did c400, then we're left with the way it is, as Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem said.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where there is a change in status, an appellation indicating a former condition would be inaccurate.

I agree.

ALL human beings begin as virgins.... for some time in their life, they are VIRGINS. Does this mean that ergo all human being are PERPETUAL virgins? . In most cases, they cease to be virgins at some point in their life, so that the appellation of "virgin" is normally not permanent.

Your point that it is pointed out that the teenage Mary is a virgin and ERGO it is a dogmatic fact of highest certainty of Fact and Truth that she was a PERPETUAL virgin is a point I disagree with (in fact, I find it remarkably baseless). I'm 24 - probably much older than Mary in Luke 1 and 2 - and I'm still a virgin. The appellation applies to me. I disagree with you that ERGO at the moment of my death (or undeath), I WILL BE a virgin since once a virgin ALWAYS a virgin. I respectfully disagree with you.

For example, I am not known as "the Infant Thekla", as I am now 50 years old. Infancy is a stage of physical development, a "temporary" condition if you will. Child is another matter - one is always the child of someone - in that sense it can, I suppose, be used as an appellation, but not in the sense of a physical condition of being a child (unless one has died in childhood).

Again, we disagree. I don't agree with you that since 100% of human beings begin as virgins, ergo it is a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact that 100% of human beings are PERPETUAL virgins and will die having never had sex. I just disagree with you. NORMALLY, virginity is a temporary thing, IMO.


Yes, both Matthew and Luke describe Her as a virgin AT THE ANNUNCIATION AND AT THE NATIVITY when many think She was perhaps 15 or so. So does this book your denomination rejects. Many 15 year olds are virgins. I was a virgin at 15. I still am at 24. I do NOT agree that this is confirmation that She was ergo a PERPETUAL virgin, that if one is EVER a virgin, ergo they are PERPETUAL virgins. I don't agree.






.